Full text of "Subtle Is The Lord"

See other formats

‘Subtle is the Lord . . .

)

1 0^ 'e/

Albert Einstein in 1896.
(Einstein Archive)

‘Subtle is the Lord .

The Science and the Life of
Albert Einstein

ABRAHAM PAIS

Rockefeller University

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
Oxford New York Toronto Melbourne

Oxford University Press

Oxford London Glasgow
New York Toronto Melbourne Auckland
Delhi Bombay Calcutta Madras Karachi
Kuala Lumpur Singapore Hong Kong Tokyo
Nairobi Dar es Salaam Cape Town

and associate companies in

Beirut Berlin Ibadan Mexico City Nicosia

First published by Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York, 1982
First issued as an Oxford University Press paperback, 1983

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Pais, Abraham, 1918-
Subtle IS the Lord—

Bibliography p Includes index
1 Einstein, Albert, 1879-1955 2 Physicists—

Biography 3 Physics— History I Title

QC16E5P26 530'092'4(B) 82-2273
ISBN 0.19-853907-X AACR2
ISBN 0-19-520438-7 (US pbk )

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Pais, Abraham

Subtle IS the Lord— the science and the life of
Albert Einstein

1 Einstein, Albert 2 Physicists— Biography
I Title

530'092'4 QC16E5
ISBN 0-19-853907-X
ISBN 0-19-285138-1 (UK pbk )

Printing (last digit): 987654
Printed in the United States of America

To Jonathan and Daniel

‘Science without religion is lame, religion without science is
blind.’ So Einstein once wrote to explain his personal creed- ‘A
religious pierson is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the
significance of those super-personal objects and goals which nei-
ther require nor are capable of rational foundation.’ His was not
a life of prayer and worship. Yet he lived by a deep faith — a faith
not capable of rational foundation — that there are laws of Nature
to be discovered. His lifelong pursuit was to discover them. His
realism and his optimism are illuminated by his remark: ‘Subtle
is the Lord, but malicious He is not’ (‘Raffiniert ist der Herrgott
aber boshaft ist er nicht.’). When asked by a colleague what he
meant by that, he replied: ‘Nature hides her secret because of her
essential loftiness, but not by means of ruse’ (‘Die Natur verbirgt
ihr Geheimnis durch die Erhabenheit ihres Wesens, aber nicht
durch List.’).

To the Reader

Turn to the table of contents, follow the entries in italics, and you will find an
almost entirely nonscientific biography of Einstein. Turn to the first chapter and
you will find a nontechnical tour through this book, some personal reminiscences,
and an attempt at a general assessment.

The principal aim of this work is to present a scientific biography of Albert
Einstein. I shall attempt to sketch the concepts of the physical world as they were
when Einstein became a physicist, how he changed them, and what scientific
inheritance he left. This book is an essay in open history, open because Einstein’s
oeuvre left us with unresolved questions of principle. The search for their answers
is a central quest of physics today. Some issues cannot be discussed without enter-
ing into mathematical details, but I have tried to hold these to a minimum by
directing the reader to standard texts wherever possible.

Science, more than anything else, was Einstein’s life, his devotion, his refuge,
and his source of detachment. In order to understand the man, it is necessary to
follow his scientific ways of thinking and doing. But that is not sufficient. He was
also a highly gifted stylist of the German language, a lover of music, a student of
philosophy. He was deeply concerned about the human condition. (In his later
years, he used to refer to his daily reading of The New York Times as his adren-
aline treatment.) He was a husband, a father, a stepfather. He was a Jew. And
he is a legend. All these elements are touched on in this story; follow the entries
in italics.

Were I asked for a one-sentence biography of Einstein, I would say, ‘He was
the freest man I have ever known.’ Had I to compose a one-sentence scientific
biography of him, I would write, “Better than anyone before or after him, he knew
how to invent invariance principles and make use of statistical fluctuations.’ Were
I permitted to use one illustration, I would offer the following drawing:

Special relativity

General relativity

Statistical physics

Quantum theory

Unified "
field theory

TO THE READER

viii

with the caption, The science and the life of Albert Einstein.’ This picture with
its entries and its arrows represents my most concise summary of Einstein’s great-
ness, his vision, and his frailty. This book is largely an attempt to explain this
cryptic description of the skeletal drawing. Toward the end of the book, the draw-
ing will return.

The generosity, wisdom, knowledge, and criticism of many have been invalu-
able to me in preparing this work. To all of them I express my deep gratitude.
No one helped me more than Helen Dukas, more familiar than anyone else at
this time with Einstein’s life, trusted guide through the Einstein Archives in
Princeton. Dear Helen, thank you, it was wonderful. I have benefited importantly
from discussions with Res Jost, Sam Treiman, and George Uhlenbeck, each of
whom read nearly the whole manuscript, made many suggestions for improve-
ment, and gave me much encouragement. I also gratefully record discussions on
particular subjects: with Valentin Bargmann, Banesh Hoffmann, and Ernst
Straus on Einstein’s life, on general relativity, and on unified field theory, with
Robert Dicke, Peter Havas, Malcolm Perry, Dennis Sciama, and John Stachel on
relativity; with Armand Borel on Poincare; with Eddie Cohen, Mark Kac, and
Martin Klein on statistical physics; with Anne Kox on Lorentz; and with Harold
Cherniss and Felix Gilbert on topics ranging from Greek atomism to the Weimar
Republic. Special thanks go to Beat Glaus from the ETH and Gunther Rasche
from the University of Zurich for helping me find my way in archives in Zurich.
To all of them as well as to those numerous others who answered questions and
inspired with comments: thank you again.

This book was completed at The Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. I
thank Harry Woolf for his hospitality and for support from the Director’s Fund.
I am greatly beholden to the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation for an important grant
that helped me in many phases of preparation. For permission to quote from
unpublished material, 1 express my deep appreciation to the Einstein Estate, the
Pauli Estate, the Rijksarchief in the Hague (Lorentz correspondence), and the
Boerhaave Museum in Leiden (Ehrenfest correspondence). I also thank the K.
Vetenskapsakademiens Nobel Kommitteer in Stockholm, and in particular Bengt
Nagel, for making available to me the documentation regarding Einstein’s Nobel
Prize.

I had the great good fortune of my dear wife Sara’s counsel and support.

I have left the text of this Preface as it was written before the death of Heler
Dukas on February 10, 1982.

TO TUB READER

On references

Each chapter has its own set of references, which are marked in the text by a
square bracket containing a letter and a number. The following abbreviations
have been used for entries that occur frequently
AdP: Annalen der Physik (Leipzig).

EB: Albert Einstein-Michele Besso Correspondance 1903-1955 (P. Speziali,
Ed.). Hermann, Paris, 1972.

PAW: Sitzungsbenchle , Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Se: Carl Seelig, Albert Einstein. Europa Verlag, Zurich, 1960.

TO TUB READER

On references

EB: Albert Einstein-Michele Besso Correspondance 1903-1955 (P. Speziali,
Ed.). Hermann, Paris, 1972.

PAW: Sitzungsbenchle , Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Se: Carl Seelig, Albert Einstein. Europa Verlag, Zurich, 1960.

CONTENTS

III RELATIVITY, THE SPECIAL THEORY

6. ‘Subtle is the Lord . . . ’ 1 1 1

(a) The Michelson-Morley experiment 111

(b) The precursors 119

1. What Einstein knew. 2. Voigt. 3. FitzGerald. 4. Lorentz. 5. Larmor.

6. Poincare.

(d) Einstein before 1905 130

1. The Pavia essay. 2. The Aarau question. 3. The ETH student

4. The Winterthur letter. 5. The Bern lecture. 6. The Kyoto address
7. Summary.

7. The new kinematics 138

(a) June 1905: special relativity defined, Lorentz transformations derived 138
1. Relativity’s aesthetic origins. 2. The new postulates.

3. From the postulates to the Lorentz transformations. 4 Applications.

5. Relativity theory and quantum theory. 6. ‘I could have said that more
simply.’

(b) September 1905; about E = mc^

148

14V

(d) Einstein and the special theory after 1905

153

(e) Electromagnetic mass; the first century

155

The edge of history

163

1. A new way of thinking. 2. Einstein and the literature.

3. Lorentz and the aether. 4. Poincare and the third hypothesis.

5. Whittaker and the history of relativity. 6. Lorentz and Poincare.
7. Lorentz and Einstein. 8. Poincare and Einstein. 9. Coda, the
Michelson-Morley experiment.

IV RELATIVITY, THE GENERAL THEORY

The happiest thought of my life’

177

10.

Herr Professor Einstein

184

(a) From Bern to Zurich

184

(b) Three and a half years of silence

187

11.

The Prague papers

192

(a) From Zurich to Prague

192

(b) 1911. The bending of light is detectable

194

201

CONTENTS

xiii

12. The Einstein-Grossmann collaboration 208

(a) From Prague to Zurich 208

(b) From scalar to tensor 210

(d) The stumbling block 221

(e) The aftermath 223

13. Field theories of gravitation: the first fifty years 228

(a) Einstein in Vienna 228

(b) The Einstein-Fokker paper 236

14. The field equations of gravitation 239

(a) From Zurich to Berlin 239

(b) Interlude. Rotation by magnetization 245

1. The crisis. 2. November the fourth 3. November the eleventh.

4. November the eighteenth. 5. November the twenty-fifth.

(d) Einstein and Hilbert 257

1 5. The new dynamics 266

(a) From 1915 to 1980 266

(b) The three successes 27 1

(d) Gravitational waves 278

(e) Cosmology. 281

(f) Singularities; the problem of motion 288

(g) What else was new at GR9? 291

V THE LATER JOURNEY

16. 'The suddenly famous Doctor Einstein ’ 299

(a) Illness. Remarriage. Death of Mother 299

(b) Einstein canonized 303

(d) Einstein and Germany 312

(e) The later writings 318

1 . The man of culture. 2. The man of science.

17. Unified Field Theory 325

(a) Particles and fields around 1920 325

Annthrr firraH#* nf arstatinn 39.ft

XIV

CONTENTS

1. Kaluza and Oskar Klein. 2. Einstein and the Kaluza-Klein theory.

3. Addenda. 4. Two options.

(d) Relativity and post-Riemannian differential geometry 336

(e) The later journey: a scientific chronology 341

(0 A postcript to unification, a prelude to quantum theory 350

VI THE QUANTUM THEORY

18. Preliminaries 357

(a) An outline of Einstein’s contributions 357

(b) Particle physics: the first fifty years 359

19. The light quantum, 364

(a) From Kirchhoff to Plank 364

(b) Einstein on Planck; 1905. The Rayleigh-Einstein- Jeans law 372

(d) Einstein on Planck: 1906 378

(e) The photo-electric effect: the second coming of /i 379

1. 1887: Hertz. 2. 1888: Hallwachs. 3. 1899: J.J. Thomson. 4. 1902:

Lenard. 5. 1905: Einstein.6. 1915: Millikan; the Duane-Hunt limit.

(0 Reaaions to the light-quantum hypothesis 382

1. Einstein’s caution. 2. Electromagnetism: free fields and interactions.

3. The impact of experiment.

20. Einstein and specific heats 389

(a) Specific heats in the nineteenth century 389

(b) Einstein 394

21. The photon 402

(a) The fusion of particles and waves and Einstein’s destiny 402

(b) Spontaneous and induced radiative transitions 405

1. The light-quantum and the photon. 2. Momentum fluctuations: 1909.

3. Momentum fluctuations: 1916.

(d) Earliest Unbehagen about chance 410

(e) An aside: quantum conditions for non-separable classical motion 412

(0 The Compton effect 412

CONTENTS

22. Interlude: The BKS proposal 416

23. A loss of identity: the birth of quantum statistics 423

(a) From Boltzmann to Dirac 423

(b) Bose 425

(d) Postscript on Bose-Einstein condensation 432

24. Einstein as a transitional figure: the birth of wave mechanics 435

(a) From Einstein to de Broglie 435

(b) From de Broglie to Einstein 436

25. Einstein’s response to the new dynamics 440

(a) 1925-1931. The debate begins 440

(b) Einstein in Princeton 449

26. Einstein’s vision 460

(a) Einstein, Newton and success 460

(b) Relativity theory and quantum theory 462

VII JOURNEY’S END

27. The final decade 473

28. Epilogue 479

VIII APPENDICES

29. Of tensors and a hearing aid and many other things:

Einstein's collaborators 483

30. How Einstein got the Nobel prize

502

XVI

CONTENTS

Einstein i proposals for the Nobel prize

513

An Einstein chronology

520

Name Index

531

Subject Index

539

‘Subtle is the Lord .

INTRODUCTORY

Purpose and Plan

It must have been around 1950. I was accompanying Einstein on a walk from
The Institute for Advanced Study to his home, when he suddenly stopped, turned
to me, and asked me if I really believed that the moon exists only if I look at it.
The nature of our conversation was not particularly metaphysical. Rather, we
were discussing the quantum theory, in particular what is doable and knowable
in the sense of physical observation. The twentieth century physicist does not, of
course, claim to have the definitive answer to this question. He does know, how-
ever, that the answer given by his nineteenth century ancestors will no longer do.
They were almost exactly right, to be sure, as far as conditions of everyday life
are concerned, but their answer cannot be extrapolated to things moving nearly
as fast as light, or to things that are as small as atoms, or— in some respects— to
things that are as heavy as stars. We now know better than before that what man
can do under the best of circumstances depends on a careful specification of what
those circumstances are. That, in very broad terms, is the lesson of the theory of
relativity, which Einstein created, and of quantum mechanics, which he eventually
accepted as (in his words) the most successful theory of our period but which, he
believed, was none the less only provisional in character.

We walked on and continued talking about the moon and the meaning of the
expression to exist as it refers to inanimate objects. When we reached 1 1 2 Mercer
Street, I wished him a pleasant lunch, then returned to the Institute. As had been
the case on many earlier occasions, I had enjoyed the walk and felt better because
of the discussion even though it had ended inconclusively. I was used to that by
then, and as I walked back I wondered once again about the question. Why does
this man, who contributed so incomparably much to the creation of modern phys-
ics, remain so attached to the nineteenth century view of causality?

To make that question more precise, it is necessary to understand Einstein’s
credo in regard not just to quantum physics but to all of physics. That much I
believe I know, and will endeavor to explain in what follows. However, in order
to answer the question, one needs to know not only his beliefs but also how they
came to be adopted. My conversations with Einstein taught me little about that.
The issue was not purposely shunned; it simply was never raised. Only many
years after Einstein’s death did I see the beginnings of an answer when I realized

INTRODUCTORY

that, nearly a decade before the discovery of modern quantum mechanics, he had
been the first to understand that the nineteenth century ideal of causality was
about to become a grave issue in quantum physics. However, while I know more
now about the evolution of his thinking than I did when I walked with him, I
would not go so far as to say that I now understand why he chose to believe what
he did believe. When Einstein was fifty years old, he wrote in the introduction to
the biography by his son-in-law Rudolph Kayser, ‘What has perhaps been over-
looked is the irrational, the inconsistent, the droll, even the insane, which nature,
inexhaustibly operative, implants in an individual, seemingly for her own amuse-
ment. But these things are singled out only in the crucible of one’s own mind.’
Perhaps this statement is too optimistic about the reach of self-knowledge. Cer-
tainly it is a warning, and a fair one, to any biographer not to overdo answering
every question he may legitimately raise.

I should briefly explain how it happened that I went on that walk with Einstein
and why we came to talk about the moon. I was born in 1918 in Amsterdam. In
1941 I received my PhD with Leon Rosenfeld in Utrecht. Some time thereafter I
went into hiding in Amsterdam. Eventually I was caught and sent to the Gestapo
prison there. Those who were not executed were released shortly before VE Day.
Immediately after the war I applied for a postdoctoral fellowship at the Niels Bohr
Institute in Copenhagen and at The Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton
where I hoped to work with Pauli. I was accepted at both places and first went
to Copenhagen for one year. Soon thereafter, I worked with Bohr for a period of
several months. The following lines from my account of that experience are rele-
vant to the present subject: ‘I must admit that in the early stages of the collabo-
ration I did not follow Bohr’s line of thinking a good deal of the time and was in
fact often quite bewildered. I failed to see the relevance of such remarks as that
Schroedinger was completely shocked in 1927 when he was told of the probability
interpretation of quantum mechanics or a reference to some objection by Einstein
in 1928, which apparently had no bearing whatever on the subject at hand. But
it did not take very long before the fog started to lift. I began to grasp not only the
thread of Bohr’s arguments but also their purpose. Just as in many sports a player
goes through warming-up exercises before entering the arena, so Bohr would
relive the struggles which it took before the content of quantum mechanics was
understood and accepted. I can say that in Bohr’s mind this struggle started all
over every single day. This, I am convinced, was Bohr’s inexhaustible source of
identity. Einstein appeared forever as his leading spiritual partner — even after the
latter’s death he would argue with him as if Einstein were still alive’ [PI].

In September 1946 I went to Princeton. The first thing I learned was that, in
the meantime, Pauli had gone to Zurich. Bohr also came to Princeton that same
month. Both of us attended the Princeton Bicentennial Meetings. I missed my first
opportunity to catch a glimpse of Einstein as he walked next to President Truman
in the academic parade. However, shortly thereafter, Bohr introduced me to Ein-
stein, who greeted a rather awed young man in a very friendly way. The conver-
sation on that occasion soon turned to the quantum theory. I listened as the two

PURPOSE AND PLAN

of them argued. I recall no details but remember distinctly my first impressions:
they liked and respected each other. With a fair amount of passion, they were
talking past each other. And, as had been the case with my first discussions with
Bohr, I did not understand what Einstein was talking about.

Not long thereafter, I encountered Einstein in front of the Institute and told
him that I had not followed his argument with Bohr and asked if I could come to
his office some time for further enlightenment. He invited me to walk home with
him. So began a series of discussions that continued until shortly before his death.*
I would visit with him in his office or accompany him (often together with Kurt
Godel) on his lunchtime walk home. Less often I would visit him there. In all, I
saw him about once every few weeks. We always spoke in German, the language
best suited to grasp both the nuances of what he had in mind and the flavor of his
personality. Only once did he visit my apartment. The occasion was a meeting of
the Institute faculty for the purpose of drafting a statement of our position in the
1954 Oppenheimer affair.

Einstein’s company was comfortable and comforting to those who knew him.
Of course, he well knew that he was a legendary figure in the eyes of the world.
He accepted this as a fact of life. There was nothing in his personality to promote
his mythical stature; nor did he relish it. Privately he would express annoyance if
he felt that his position was being misused. I recall the case of Professor X, who
had been quoted by the newspapers as having found solutions to Einstein’s gen-
eralized equations of gravitation. Einstein said to me, ‘Der Mann ist ein Narr,’
the man is a fool, and added that, in his opinion, X could calculate but could not
think. X had visited Einstein to discuss this work, and Einstein, always courteous,
had said to him that his, X’s, results would be important if true. Einstein was
chagrined to have been quoted in the papers without this last provision. He said
that he would keep silent on the matter but would not receive X again. According
to Einstein, the whole thing started because X, in his enthusiasm, had repeated
Einstein’s opinion to some colleagues who saw the value of it as publicity for their
university.

To those physicists who could follow his scientific thought and whp knew him
personally, the legendary aspect was never in the foreground — yet it was never
wholly absent. I remember an occasion in 1947 when I was giving a talk at the
Institute about the newly discovered ir and /i mesons. Einstein walked in just after
I had begun. I remember being speechless for the brief moment necessary to over-
come a sense of the unreal. I recall a similar moment during a symposium** held

•My stay at the Institute had lost much of its attraction because Pauli was no longer there. As I was
contemplating returning to Europe, Robert Oppenheimer informed me that he had been approached
for the directorship of the Institute. He asked me to join him in building up physics there. I accepted.
A year later, I was appointed to a five-year membership and in 1950 to a professorship at the Insti-
tute, where I remained until 1963.

••The speakers were J. R. Oppenheimer, 1. 1. Rabi, E. P. Wigner, H. P. Robertson, S. M. Clem-

INTRODUCTORY

in Princeton on March 19, 1949, on the occasion of Einstein's seventieth birthday.
Most of us were in our seats when Einstein entered the hall. Again there was this
brief hush before we stood to greet him.

Nor do I believe that such reactions were typical only of those who were much
younger than he. There were a few occasions when Pauli and I were both with
him. Pauli, not known for an excess of awe, was just slightly different in Einstein’s
company. One could perceive his sense of reverence. Bohr, too, was affected in a
similar way, differences in scientific outlook notwithstanding.

Whenever I met Einstein, our conversations might range far and wide but
invariably the discussion would turn to physics. Such discussions would touch only
occasionally on matters of past history. We talked mainly about the present and
the future. When relativity was the issue, he would often talk of his efforts to
unify gravitation and electromagnetism and of his hopes for the next steps. His
faith rarely wavered in the path he had chosen. Only once did he express a res-
ervation to me when he said, in essence, ‘I am not sure that differential geometry
is the framework for further progress, but, if it is, then I believe I am on the right
track.’ (This remark must have been made some time during his last few years.)

The main topic of discussion, however, was quantum physics. Einstein never
ceased to ponder the meaning of the quantum theory. Time and time again, the
argument would turn to quantum mechanics and its interpretation. He was
explicit in his opinion that the most commonly held views on this subject could not
be the last word, but he also had more subtle ways of expressing his dissent. For
example, he would never refer to a wave function as die Wellenjunklion but would
always use mathematical terminology: die Psijunktion. I was never able to arouse
much interest in him about the new particles which appeared on the scene in the
late 1940s and especially in the early 1950s. It was apparent that he felt that the
time was not ripe to worry about such things and that these particles would even-
tually appear as solutions to the equations of a unified theory. In some sense, he
may well prove to be right.

The most interesting thing I learned from these conversations was how Einstein
thought and, to some extent, who he was. Since I never became his co-worker, the
discussions were not confined to any particular problem. Yet we talked physics,
often touching on topics of a technical nature. We did not talk much about statis-
tical physics, an area to which he had contributed so much but which no longer
was the center of his interests. If the special and the general theory of relativity
came up only occasionally, that was because at that time the main issues appeared
to have been settled. Recall that the renewed surge of interest in general relativity
began just after his death. However, I do remember him talking about Lorentz,
the one father figure in his life; once we also talked about Poincare. If we argued
so often about the quantum theory, that was more his choice than mine. It had
not taken long before I grasped the essence of the Einstein- Bohr dialogue, com-
plementarity versus objective reality. It became clear to me from listening to them
both that the advent of quantum mechanics in 1925 represented a far greater

PURPOSE AND PLAN

break with the past than had been the case with the coming of special relativity
in 1905 or of general relativity in 1915. That had not been obvious to me earlier,
as I belong to the generation which was exposed to ‘ready-made’ quantum
mechanics. I came to understand how wrong I was in accepting a rather wide-
spread belief that Einstein simply did not care anymore about the quantum theory.
On the contrary, he wanted nothing more than to find a unified field theory which
not only would join together gravitational and electromagnetic forces but also
would provide the basis for a new interpretation of quantum phenomena. About
relativity he spoke with detachment, about the quantum theory with passion. The
quantum was his demon. I learned only much later that Einstein had once said to
his friend Otto Stern, ‘I have thought a hundred times as much about the quantum
problems as I have about general relativity theory’ (Jl). From my own experiences
I can only add that this statement does not surprise me.

We talked of things other than physics; politics, the bomb, the Jewish destiny,
and also of less weighty matters. One day I told Einstein a Jewish joke. Since he
relished that, I began to save good ones I heard for a next occasion. As I told these
stories, his face would change. Suddenly he would look much younger, almost like
a naughty schoolboy. When the punch line came, he would let go with contented
laughter, a memory I particularly cherish.

An unconcern with the past is a privilege of youth. In all the years I knew
Einstein, I never read any of his papers, on the simple grounds that I already
knew what to a physicist was memorable in them and did not need to know what
had been superseded. Now it is obvious to me that I might have been able to ask
him some very interesting questions had I been less blessed with ignorance. I
might then have learned some interesting facts, but at a price. My discussions with
Einstein never were historical interviews. They concerned live physics. I am glad
it never was otherwise.

I did read Einstein’s papers as the years went by, and my interest in him as an
historical figure grew. Thus it came about that I learned to follow his science and
his life from the end to the beginnings. I gradually became aware of the most
difficult task in studying past science: to forget temporarily what came afterward.
The study of his papers, discussions with others who knew him, access to the
Einstein Archives, personal reminiscences — these are the ingredients which led to
this book. Without disrespect or lack of gratitude, I have found the study of the
scientific papers to be incomparably more important than anything else.

In the preface, I promised a tour through this book. The tour starts here. For
ease I introduce the notation, to be used only in this and in the next chapter, of
referring to, for example. Chapter 3 as (3) and to Chapter 5, Section (c), as (5c).
To repeat, symbols such as [Jl] indicate references to be found at the end of the
chapter.

I shall begin by indicating how the personal biography is woven into the nar-

INTRODUCTORY

PURPOSE AND PLAN

Bureau of the Associated Press came on the line and told me that the Oppenhei-
mer case would be all over the papers on Tuesday morning. He was eager for a
statement by Einstein as soon as possible. 1 realized that pandemonium on Mercer
Street the next morning might be avoided by a brief statement that evening and
so said that I would talk it over with Einstein and would call back in any event.
I drove to Mercer Street and rang the bell; Helen Dukas, Einstein’s secretary, let
me in. I apologized for appearing at such a late hour and said it would be good if
I could talk briefly with the professor, who meanwhile had appeared at the top of
the stairs dressed in his bathrobe and asked, ‘Was ist los?’ What is going on? He
came down and so did his stepdaughter Margot. After I told him the reason for
my call, Einstein burst out laughing. I was a bit taken aback and asked him what
was so funny. He said that the problem was simple. All Oppenheimer needed to
do, he said, was go to Washington, tell the officials that they were fools, and then
go home. On further discussion, we decided that a brief statement was called for.
We drew it up, and Einstein read it over the phone to the AP director in Wash-
ington. The next day Helen Dukas was preparing lunch when she saw cars in
front of the house and cameras being unloaded. In her apron (she told me) she
ran out of the house to warn Einstein, who was on his way home. When he arrived
at the front door, he declined to talk to reporters.

Was Einstein’s initial response correct? Of course it was, even though his sug-
gestion would not and could not be followed. I remember once attending a seminar
by Bertrand de Jouvenel in which he singled out the main characteristic of a
political problem: it has no answer, only a compromise. Nothing was more alien
to Einstein than to settle any issue by compromise, in his life or in his science. He
often spoke out on political problems, always steering to their answer. Such state-
ments have often been called naive.* In my view, Einstein was not only not naive
but highly aware of the nature of man’s sorrows and his follies. His utterances on
px)litical matters did not always address the immediately practicable, and I do not
think that on the whole they were very influential. However, he knowingly and
gladly paid the price of sanity.

As another comment on political matters, I should like to relate a story I was
told in 1979 by Israel’s President Navon. After the death of the then Israeli pres-
ident, Weizman, in November 1952, Ben Gurion and his cabinet decided to ofTer
the presidency to Einstein. Abba Eban was instructed to transmit the ofTer from
Washington (27). Shortly thereafter, in a private conversation, Ben Gurion asked
Navon (who at that time was his personal secretary), ‘What are we going to do
if he accepts?’

Einstein often lent his name to pacifist statements, doing so for the first time in
1914 (14a). In 1916 he gave an interview to the Berlin paper Die Vossische Zei-
tung about the work on Mach by his pacifist friend Friedrich Adler, then in jail

*Oppcnhcimer’s description, There was always with him a wonderful purity at once childlike and
profoundly stubborn’ [01] shows the writer’s talent for almost understanding everything.

INTRODUCTORY

for having shot and killed Karl Stiirgkh, the prime minister of Austria [El]. After
the death of Leo Arons, a physicist Einstein admired for his political courage but
whom he did not know personally, he wrote an obituary in Sozialistische Mon-
atshefte [E2|. After the assassination in 1922 of his acquaintance Walther Rath-
enau, foreign minister of the Weimar republic and a physicist by education, Ein-
stein wrote of him in Neue Rundschau: ‘|t is no art to be an idealist if one lives
in cloud-cuckoo land. He, however, was an idealist even though he lived on earth
and knew its smell better than almost anyone else’ [E3]. In 1923 Einstein became
a cofounder of the Association of Friends of the New Russia. Together with Lor-
entz, Marie Curie, Henry Bergson, and others, he worked for a time as a member
of the League of Nations’ Committee for Intellectual Cooperation (16d). Among
those he proposed or endorsed for the Nobel peace prize (31) were Masaryk; Her-
bert Runham Brown, honorary secretary of War Resisters International; Carl von
Ossietzky, at the time in a German concentration camp; and the organization
Youth Aliyah. He spoke out about the plight of the Jews and helped. Numerous
are the affidavits he signed in order to bring Jews from Europe to the United
States.

Pacifism and supranationalism were Einstein’s two principal political ideals. In
the 1920s he supported universal disarmament and a United Europe (16d). After
the Second World War, he especially championed the concept of world govern-
ment, and the peaceful— and only peaceful— uses of atomic energy (27). That
pacifism and disarmament were out of place in the years 1933 to 1945 was both
deeply regrettable and obvious to him (25b). In 1939 he sent his sensible letter to
President Roosevelt on the military implications of nuclear fission. In 1943 he
signed a contract with the U.S. Navy Bureau of Ordnance as occasional consultant
(his fee was $25 per day).* Perhaps his most memorable contribution of that
period is his saying, ‘I am in the Navy, but I was not required to get a Navy
haircut.’ [Blj. He never forgave the Germans (27).**

Einstein’s political orientation, which for simplicity may be called leftist,
derived from his sense of justice, not from an approval of method or a sharing of
philosophy. ‘In Lenin I honor a man who devoted all his strength and sacrificed
his person to the realization of social Justice. I do not consider his method to be
proper,’ he wrote in 1929 [E4] and, shortly thereafter, ‘Outside Russia, Lenin and
Engels are of course not valued as scientific thinkers and no one might be inter-
ested to refute them as such. The same might also be the case in Russia, but there
one cannot dare to say so’ [E5]. Much documentation related to Einstein’s inter-
ests in and involvements with political matters is found in the book Einstein on
Peace (Nlj).

Einstein was a lover of wisdom. But was he a philosopher? The answer to that

*Thc account of Einstein’s consultancy given in (Gl) is inaccurate.

**Einstein’s cousin Lina Einstein died in Auschwitz. His cousin Bertha Dreyfus died in Theresien-
stadt.

PURPOSE AND PLAN

question is no less a matter of taste than of fact. I would say that at his best he
was not, but I would not argue strenuously against the opposite view. It is as
certain that Einstein’s interest in philosophy was genuine as it is that he did not
consider himself a philosopher.

He studied philosophical writings throughout his life, beginning in his high
school days, when he first read Kant (3). In 1943 Einstein, Godel, Bertrand Rus-
sell, and Pauli gathered at Einstein’s home to discuss philosophy of science about
half a dozen times [Rl]. ‘Science without epistemology is — in so far as it is think-
able at all — primitive and muddled,’ he wrote in his later years, warning at the
same time of the dangers to the scientist of adhering too strongly to any one epis-
temological system. ‘He [the scientist] must appear to the systematic epistemologist
as a type of unscrupulous opportunist: he appears as realist in so far as he seeks
to describe a world independent of the acts of perception; an idealist in so far as
he looks upon the concepts and theories as the free inventions of the human spirit
(not logically derivable from what is empirically given); as positivist in so far as
he considers his concepts and theories justified only to the extent to which they
furnish a logical representation of relations among sensory experiences. He may
even appear as a Platonist or Pythagorean in so far as he considers the viewpoint
of logical simplicity as an indispensable and effective tool of his research’ [E6].

Elements of all these ‘isms’ are clearly discernible in Einstein’s thinking. In the
last thirty years of his life, he ceased to be an ‘unscrupulous opportunist’, however,
when, much to his detriment, he became a philosopher by freezing himself into
realism or, as he preferred to call it, objective reality. That part of his evolution
will be described in detail in (25). There can be as little doubt that philosophy
stretched his personality as that his philosophical knowledge played no direct role
in his major creative efforts. Further remarks by Einstein on philosophical issues
will be deferred until (16e), except for his comments on Newton.

The men whom Einstein at one time or another acknowledged as his precursors
were Newton, Maxwell, Mach, Planck, and Lorentz. As he told me more than
once, without Lorentz he would never have been able to make the discovery of
special relativity. Of his veneration for Planck, I shall write in (18a); of the influ-
ence of Mach* in (15e); and of his views of Maxwell in (16e). I now turn to
Newton but first digress briefly.

Einstein’s deep emotional urge not to let anything interfere with his thinking
dates back to his childhood and lends an unusual quality of detachment to his
personal life. It was not that he was aloof or a loner, incapable of personal attach-
ments. He was also capable of deep anger, as his attitude toward Germany during

*I should note that I do not quite share Isaiah Berlin’s opinion [B2] that Mach was one of Einstein’s
philosophical mentors and that Einstein first accepted, then rejected Mach’s phenomenalism. Ein-
stein’s great admiration for Mach came entirely from the reading of the latter’s book on mechanics,
in which the relativity of all motion is a guiding principle. On the other hand, Einstein considered
Mach to be ‘un deplorable philosophe’ [E7], if only because to Mach the reality of atoms remained
forever anathema.

INTRODUCTORY

»4

and after the Nazi period attests. When he spoke or wrote of justice and liberty
for others, called the Jews his brothers, or grieved for the heroes of the Warsaw
ghetto, he did so as a man of feeling at least as much as a man of thought. That,
having thus spoken and thus felt, he would want to return to the purity and safety
of the world of ideas is not an entirely uncommon desire. Truly remarkable, how-
ever, was his gift to effect the return to that world without emotional effort. He
had no need to push the everyday world away from him. He just stepped out of
it whenever he wished. It is therefore not surprising either that (as he wrote
shortly before his death) he twice failed rather disgracefully in marriage or that
in his life there is an absence of figures with whom he identified — with the excep-
tion, perhaps, of Newton.

It seems to me that, when in midlife Einstein wrote of ‘The wonderful events
which the great Newton experienced in his young days. . . Nature to him was an

open book In one person he combined the experimenter, the theorist, the

mechanic, and, not least, the artist in exposition. ... He stands before us strong,
certain, and alone: his joy in creation and his minute precision are evident in every
word and every figure . . .’ [E8], he described his own ideals, the desire for ful-
fillment not just as a theorist but also as an experimental physicist. (In the second
respect, he, of course, never matched Newton.) Earlier he had written that New-
ton ‘deserves our deep veneration’ for his achievements, and that Newton’s own
awareness of the weaknesses of his own theories ‘has always excited my reverent
admiration’ [E9] (these weaknesses included the action of forces at a distance,
which, Newton noted, was not to be taken as an ultimate explanation).

‘Fortunate Newton, happy childhood of Science!’ [E8]. When Einstein wrote
these opening words in the introduction to a new printing of Newton’s Opticks,
he had especially in mind that Newton’s famous dictum ‘hypotheses non fingo,’
I frame no hypotheses, expressed a scientific style of the past. Elsewhere Einstein
was quite explicit on this issue:

Wc now know that science cannot grow out of empiricism alone, that in the
constructions of science we need to use free invention which only a posteriori
can be confronted with experience as to its usefulness. This fact could elude
earlier generations, to whom theoretical creation seemed to grow inductively out
of empiricism without the creative influence of a free construction of concepts.

The more primitive the status of science is the more readily can the scientist
live under the illusion that he is a pure empiricist. In the nineteenth century,
many still believed that Newton’s fundamental rule ‘hypotheses non fingo’
should underlie all healthy natural science. [ElO]

Einstein again expressed his view that the scientific method had moved on in
words only he could have written:

Newton, forgive me; you found the only way which in your age was just about
possible for a man with the highest powers of thought and creativity. The con-
cepts which you created are guiding our thinking in physics even today,

PURPOSE AND PLAN

although we now know that they will have to be replaced by others farther
removed from the sphere of immediate experience, if we aim at a profounder
understanding of relationships. [Ell]

However, in one respect Einstein forever continued to side with Newton and
to quote his authority. That was in the matter of causality. On the occasion of the
bicentenary of Newton’s death, Einstein wrote to the secretary of the Royal Soci-
ety, ‘All who share humbly in pondering over the secrets of physical events are
with you in spirit, and join in the admiration and love that bind us to Newton’,
then went on to comment on the evolution of physics since Newton’s day and
concluded as follows:

It IS only in the quantum theory that Newton’s differential method becomes
inadequate, and indeed strict causality fails us. But the last word has not yet
been said. May the spirit of Newton’s method give us the power to restore
unison between physical reality and the profoundest characteristic of Newton’s
teaching— strict causality [E12]

What is strict Newtonian causality? As an example, if I give you the precise
position and velocity of a particle at a given instant, and if you know all the forces
acting on it, then you can predict from Newton’s laws the precise position and
velocity of that particle at a later time. Quantum theory implies, however, that I
am unable to give you that information about position and velocity with ideal
precision, even if I have the most perfect instrumentation at my disposal. That is
the problem I discussed with Einstein in our conversation about the existence of
the moon, a body so heavy that the limitations on the precision of information on
position and velocity I can give you are so insignificant that, to all astronomical
intents and purposes, you can neglect the indeterminacy in the information you
obtained from me and continue to talk of the lunar orbit.

It is quite otherwise for things like atoms. In the hydrogen atom, the electron
does not move in an orbit in the same sense as the moon moves around the earth,
for, if it did, the hydrogen atom would be as flat as a little pancake whereas
actually it is a little sphere. As a matter of principle, there is no way back to
Newtonian causality. Of course, this recognition never diminished Newton’s stat-
ure. Einstein’s hope for a return to that old causality is an impossible dream. Of
course, this opinion, held by modern physicists, has not prevented them from rec-
ognizing Einstein as by far the most important scientific figure of this century.
His special relativity includes the completion of the work of Maxwell and Lorentz.
His general relativity includes the completion of Newton’s theory of gravitation
and incorporates Mach’s vision of the relativity of all motion. In all these respects,
Einstein’s oeuvre represents the crowning of the work of his precursors, adding to
and revising the foundations of their theories. In this sense he is a transitional
figure, perfecting the past and changing the stream of future events. At the same
time he is a pioneer, as first Planck, then he, then Bohr founded a new physics
without precursors — the quantum theory.

INTRODUCTORY

Einstein deserves to be given the same compliment he gave Newton: he, too,
was an artist in exposition. His talent for the German language was second only
to his gift for science. I refer not so much to his proclivity for composing charming
little rhymes as to the quality of his prose. He was a master of nuances, which are
hard to maintain in translation. The student of Einstein should read him in Ger-
man. It is fitting that several of his important papers, such as his scientific credo
in the Journal of the Franklin Institute of 1936, and his autobiographical sketch
in the Schilpp book [Eb], should appear side by side in the original German and
in English translation. He wrote all his scientific papers in German, whether or
not they eventually appeared in that language. Not only his mastery of language
but also his perceptiveness of people is evident in his writings in memory of col-
leagues and friends; of Schwarzschild and Smoluchowski, of Marie Curie and
Emmy Noether, of Michelson and Thomas Edison, of Lorentz, Nernst, Langevin,
and Planck, of Walther Rathenau, and, most movingly, of Paul Ehrenfest. These
portraits serve as the best foil for the opinion that Einstein was a naive man.

In languages other than German, he was less at ease.* On his first visit to Paris,
in 1922, he lectured in French[Kl). He spoke in German, however, when address-
ing audiences on his first visits to England and the United States, but became
fluent in English in later years.

Music was his love. He cared neither for twentieth century composers nor for
many of the nineteenth century ones. He loved Schubert but was not attracted to
the heavily dramatic parts of Beethoven. He was not particularly fond of Brahms
and disliked Wagner. His favorite composers were earlier ones — Mozart, Bach,
Vivaldi, Corelli, Scarlatti. I never heard him play the violin, but most of those
who did attest to his musicality and the ease with which he sight-read scores.
About his predilections in the visual arts, I quote from a letter by Margot Einstein
to Meyer Schapiro:

In visual art, he preferred, of course, the old masters They seemed to him more
‘convincing’ (he used this word!) than the masters of our time. But sometimes
he surprised me by looking at the early period of Picasso (1905, 1906). . . .
Words like cubism, abstract painting . . . did not mean anything to him.

Giotto moved him deeply . . . also Fra Angelico . . Piero della Francesca. .

He loved the small Italian towns. ... He loved cities like Florence, Siena
(Sienese paintings), Pisa, Bologna, Padua and admired the architecture . . If
it comes to Rembrandt, yes, he admired him and felt him deeply. |E131**

•During the 1920s, Einstein once said to a young friend, ‘I like neither new clothes nor new kinds
of food. 1 would rather not learn new languages’ (SI).

•*I have no clear picture of Einstein’s habits and preferences in regard to literature. I do not know
how complete or representative is the following randomly ordered list of authors he liked. Heine,
Anatole France, Balzac, Dostoyevski {The Brothers Karamazov), Musil, Dickens, Lagerlof, Tolstoi
(folk stories), Kazantzakis, Brecht {Galilei), Broch {The Death of Virgil), Gandhi (autobiography),
Gorki, Hersey {A Bell for Adano), van Loon {Life and Times of Rembrandt), Reik {lAstemng with
the Third Ear).

PURPOSE AND PLAN

As a conclusion to this introductory sketch of Einstein the man, I should like to
elaborate the statement made in the Preface that Einstein was the freest man I
have known. By that I mean that, more than anyone else I have encountered, he
was the master of his own destiny. If he had a God it was the God of Spinoza.
Einstein was not a revolutionary, as the overthrow of authority was never his
prime motivation. He was not a rebel, since any authority but the one of reason
seemed too ridiculous to him to waste effort fighting against (one can hardly call
his opposition to Nazism a rebellious attitude). He had the freedom to ask scien-
tific questions, the genius to so often ask the right ones. He had no choice but to
accept the answer. His deep sense of destiny led him farther than anyone before
him. It was his faith in himself which made him persevere. Fame may on occasion
have flattered him, but it never deflected him. He was fearless of time and, to an
uncommon degree, fearless of death. I cannot find tragedy in his later attitude to
the quantum theory or in his lack of success in finding a unified field theory,
especially since some of the questions he asked remain a challenge to this day
(2b) — and since I never read tragedy in his face. An occasional touch of sadness
in him never engulfed his sense of humor.

I now turn to a tour of Einstein’s science.

Einstein never cared much for teaching courses. No one was ever awarded a
PhD degree working with him, but he was always fond of discussing physics prob-
lems, whether with colleagues his age or with people much younger. All his major
papers are his own, yet in the course of his life he often collaborated with others.
A survey of these collaborative efforts, involving more than thirty colleagues or
assistants, is found in (29). From his student days until well into his forties, he
would seek opportunities to do experiments. As a student he hoped to measure the
drift of the aether through which (as he then believed) the earth was moving (6d).
While at the patent office, he tinkered with a device to measure small voltage
differences (3, 29). In Berlin he conducted experiments on rotation induced by
magnetization (14b), measured the diameter of membrane capillaries (29), and
was involved with patents for refrigerating devices and for a hearing aid (29). But,
of course, theoretical physics was his main devotion.

There is no better way to begin this brief survey of his theoretical work than
with a first look at what he did in 1905. In that year Einstein produced six papers;

1. The light-quantum and the photoelectric effect, completed March 17 (19c),
(19e). This paper, which led to his Nobel prize in physics, was produced before
he wrote his PhD thesis.

2. A new determination of molecular dimensions, tximpleted April 30. This was
his doctoral thesis, which was to become his paper most often quoted in modern
literature (5c).

l8 INTRODUCTORY

3. Brownian motion, received’" May 11. This was a direct outgrowth of his thesis
work (5d).

4. The first paper on special relativity, received’" June 30.

5. The second paper on special relativity, containing the E = mc^ relation,
received’" September 27.

6. A second paper on Brownian motion, received’" December 19.

There is little if anything in his earlier published work that hints at this
extraordinary creative outburst. By his own account, the first two papers he ever
wrote, dating from 1901 and 1902 and dealing with the hypothesis of a universal
law of force between molecules, were worthless (4a). Then followed three papers
of mixed quality (4c, 4d) on the foundations of statistical mechanics. The last of
these, written in 1904, contains a first reference to the quantum theory. None of
these first five papers left much of a mark on physics, but I believe they were very
important warming-up exercises in Einstein’s own development. Then came a
year of silence, followed by the outpouring of papers in 1905. I do not know what
his trains of thought were during 1904. His personal life changed in two respects:
his position at the patent office was converted from temporary to permanent status.
And his first son was born. Whether these events helped to promote the emergence
of Einstein’s genius I cannot tell, though I believe that the arrival of the son may
have been a profound experience. Nor do I know a general and complete char-
acterization of what genius is, except that it is more than an extreme form of talent
and that the criteria for genius are not objective. I note with relief that the case
for Einstein as a genius will cause even less of an argument than the case for
Picasso and much less of an argument than the case for Woody Allen, and I do
hereby declare that — in my opinion — Einstein was a genius.

Einstein’s work before 1905 as well as papers 2, 3, and 6 of that year resulted
from his interest in two central early twentieth-century problems, the subjects of
Part II of this book.

The first problem: molecular reality. How can one prove (or disprove) that
atoms and molecules are real things? If they are real, then how can one determine
their size and count their number? In (5a), there is an introductory sketch of the
nineteenth century status of this question. During that period the chemist, member
of the youngest branch of science, argued the question in one context, the physicist
in another, and each paid little attention to what the other was saying. By about
1900 many, though not all, leading chemists and physicists believed that molecules
were real. A few among the believers already knew that the atom did not deserve
its name, which means ‘uncuttable.’ Roughly a decade later, the issue of molecular
reality was settled beyond dispute, since in the intervening years the many meth-
ods for counting these hypothetical particles all gave the same result, to within
small errors. The very diversity of these methods and the very sameness of the

By the editors of Annalen der Physik.

PURPOSE AND PLAN

answers gave the molecular picture the compelling strength of a unifying princi-
ple. Three of these methods are found in Einstein’s work of 1905. In March he
counted molecules in his light-quantum paper (19c). In April he made a count
with the help of the flow properties of a solution of sugar molecules in water (5c).
In May he gave a third count in the course of explaining the long-known phe-
nomenon of Brownian motion of small clumps of matter suspended in solution
(5d). The confluence of all these answers is the result of important late nineteenth-
century developments in experimental physics. Einstein’s March method could be
worked out only because of a breakthrough in far-infrared spectroscopy (19a).
The April and May methods were a consequence of the discovery by Dr Pfeifer
of a method for making rigid membranes (5c). Einstein’s later work (191 1) on the
blueness of the sky and on critical opalescence yielded still other counting methods
(5e).

The second problem; the molecular basis of statistical physics. If atoms and
molecules are real things, then how does one express such macroscopic concepts
as pressure, temperature, and entropy in terms of the motion of these submicros-
copic particles? The great masters of the nineteenth century — Maxwell, Boltz-
mann, Kelvin, van der Waals, and others— did not, of course, sit and wait for the
molecular hypothesis to be proved before broaching problem number two. The
most diflicult of their tasks was the derivation of the second law of thermodynam-
ics. What is the molecular basis for the property that the entropy of an isolated
system strives toward a maximum as the system moves toward equilibrium? A
survey of the contributions to this problem by Einstein’s predecessors as well as
by Einstein himself is presented in (4). In those early days, Einstein was not the
only one to underestimate the mathematical care that this very complex problem
rightfully deserves. When Einstein did this work, his knowledge of the funda-
mental contributions by Boltzmann was fragmentary, his ignorance of Gibbs’
papers complete. This does not make any easier the task of ascertaining the merits
of his contributions.

To Einstein, the second problem was of deeper interest than the first. As he
said later. Brownian motion was important as a method for counting particles, but
far more important because it enables us to demonstrate the reality of those
motions we call heat, simply by looking into a microscope. On the whole, Ein-
stein’s work on the second law has proved to be of less lasting value than his
investigations on the verification of the molecular hypothesis. Indeed, in 1911 he
wrote that he would probably not have published his papers of 1903 and 1904
had he been aware of Gibbs’ work.

Nevertheless, Einstein’s preoccupation with the fundamental questions of sta-
tistical mechanics was extremely vital since it led to his most important contri-
butions to the quantum theory. It is no accident that the term Boltzmann's prin-
ciple, coined by Einstein, appears for the first time in his March 1905 paper on
the light-quantum. In fact the light-quantum postulate itself grew out of a statis-
tical argument concerning the equilibrium properties of radiation (19c). It should

INTRODUCTORY

also be remembered that the main applications of his first work (1904) on energy
fluctuations (4c) are in the quantum domain. His analysis of these fluctuations in
blackbody radiation led him to become the first to state, in 1909, long before the
discovery of quantum mechanics, that the theory of the future ought to be based
on a dual description in terms of particles and waves (21a). Another link between
statistical mechanics and the quantum theory was forged by his study of the
Brownian motion of molecules in a bath of electromagnetic radiation. This inves-
tigation led him to the momentum properties of light-quanta (21c). His new der-
ivation, in 1916, of Planck’s blackbody radiation law also has a statistical basis
(21b). In the course of this last work, he observed a lack of Newtonian causality
in the process called spontaneous emission. His discomfort about causality origi-
nated from that discovery (21 d).

Einstein’s active involvement with statistical physics began in 1902 and lasted
until 1925, when he made his last major contribution to physics: his treatment of
the quantum statistics of molecules (23). Again and for the last time, he applied
fluctuation phenomena with such mastery that they led him to the very threshold
of wave mechanics (24b). The links between the contributions of Einstein, de
Broglie, and Schroedinger, discussed in (24), make clear that wave mechanics has
its roots in statistical mechanics — unlike matrix mechanics, where the connections
between the work of Bohr, Heisenberg, and Dirac followed in the first instance
from studies of the dynamics of atoms (18c).

Long periods of gestation are a marked characteristic in Einstein’s scientific
development. His preoccupation with quantum problems, which began shortly
after Planck’s discovery of the blackbody radiation law late in 1900, bore its first
fruit in March 1905. Questions that lie at the root of the special theory of relativity
dawned on him as early as 1895 (6d); the theory saw the light in June 1905. He
began to think of general relativity in 1907 (9); that theory reached its first level
of completion in November 1915 (14c). His interest in unified field theory dates
back at least to 1918 (17a). He made the first of his own proposals for a theory
of this kind in 1925 (17d). As far as the relativity theories are concerned, these
gestation periods had a climactic ending. There was no more than about five weeks
between his understanding of the correct interpretation of the measurement of
time and the completion of his first special relativity paper (7a). Similarly, after
years of trial and error, he did all the work on his ultimate formulation of general
relativity in approximately two months (14c).

I focus next on special relativity. One version of its history could be very brief:
in June, 1905, Einstein published a paper on the electrodynamics of moving bod-
ies. It consists of ten sections. After the first five sections, the theory lies before us
in finished form. The rest, to this day, consists of the application of the principles
stated in those first five sections.

My actual account of that history is somewhat more elaborate. It begins with
brief remarks on the nineteenth century concept of the aether (6a), that quaint,
hypothetical medium which was introduced for the purpose of explaining the

PURPOSE AND PLAN

transmission of light waves and which was abolished by Einstein. The question
has often been asked whether or not Einstein disposed of the aether because he
was familiar with the Michelson-Morley experiment, which, with great accuracy,
had demonstrated the absence of an anticipated drift of the aether as the earth
moved through it without obstruction (6a). The answer is that Einstein undoubt-
edly knew of the Michelson-Morley result (6d) but that probably it played only
an indirect role in the evolution of his thinking (7a). From 1907 on, Einstein often
emphasized the fundamental importance of the work by Michelson and Morley,
but continued to be remarkably reticent about any direct influence of that exper-
iment on his own development. An understanding of that attitude lies beyond the
edge of history. In (8) I shall dare to speculate on this subject.

Two major figures, Lorentz and Poincare, take their place next to Einstein in
the history of special relativity, Lorentz, founder of the theory of electrons,
codiscoverer of the Lorentz contraction (as Poincare named it), interpreter of the
Zeeman effect, acknowledged by Einstein as his precursor, wrote down the Lor-
entz transformations (so named by Poincare) in 1904. In 1905, Einstein, at that
time aware only of Lorentz’s writings up to 1895, rediscovered these transfor-
mations. In 1898, Poincare, one of the greatest mathematicians of his day and a
consummate mathematical physicist, had written that we have no direct intuition
of the simultaneity of events occurring in two different places, a remark almost
certainly known to Einstein before 1905 (6b). In 1905 Einstein and Poincare
stated independently and almost simultaneously (within a matter of weeks) the
group properties of the Lorentz transformations and the addition theorem of veloc-
ities. Yet, both Lorentz and Poincare missed discovering special relativity; they
were too deeply steeped in considerations of dynamics. Only Einstein saw the cru-
cial new point: the dynamic aether must be abandoned in favor of a new kine-
matics based on two new postulates (7). Only he saw that the Lorentz transfor-
mations, and hence the Lorentz- Fitzgerald contraction, can be derived from
kinematic arguments. lx)rentz acknowledged this and developed a firm grasp of
special relativity, but even after 1905 never quite gave up either the aether or his
reservations concerning the velocity of light as an ultimate velocity (8). In all his
life (he died in 1912), Poincare never understood the basis of special relativity (8).

Special relativity brought clarity to old physics and created new physics, in par-
ticular Einstein’s derivation (also in 1905) of the relation E = mc^ (7b). It was
some years before the first main experimental confirmation of the new theory, the
energy-mass-velocity relation for fast electrons, was achieved (7e). After 1905 Ein-
stein paid only occasional attention to other implications (7d), mainly because
from 1907 he was after bigger game: general relativity.

The history of the discovery of general relativity is more complicated. It is a
tale of a tortuous path. No amount of simplification will enable me to match the
minihistory of special relativity given earlier. In the quantum theory, Planck
started before Einstein. In special relativity, Lorentz inspired him. In general rel-
ativity, he starts the long road alone. His progress is no longer marked by that

INTRODUCTORY

light touch and deceptive ease so typical of all his work published in 1905. The
first steps are made in 1907, as he discovers a simple version of the equivalence
principle and understands that matter will bend light and that the spectral lines
reaching us from the sun should show a tiny shift toward the red relative to the
same spectral lines produced on earth (9). During the next three and a half years,
his attention focuses on that crisis phenomenon, the quantum theory, rather than
on the less urgent problems of relativity (10). His serious concentration on general
relativity begins after his arrival in Prague in 1911, where he teaches himself a
great deal with the help of a model theory. He gives a calculation of the bending
of light by the sun. His result is imperfect, since at that time he still believes that
space is flat (11). In the summer of 1912, at the time of his return to Zurich, he
makes a fundamental discovery: space is not flat; the geometry of the world is not
Euclidean. It is Riemannian. Ably helped by an old friend, the mathematician
Marcel Grossmann, he establishes the first links between geometry and gravity.
With his habitual optimism he believes he has solved the fifty-year-old problem
(13) of finding a field theory of gravitation. Not until late in 1915 does he fully
realize how flawed his theory actually is. At that very same time, Hilbert starts
his important work on gravitation (14d). After a few months of extremely intense
work, Einstein presents the final revised version of his theory on November 25,
1915 (14c).

One week earlier he had obtained two extraordinary results. Fulfilling an
aspiration he had had since 1907, he found the correct explanation of the long-
known precession of the perihelion of the planet Mercury. That was the high
point in his scientific life. He was so excited that for three days he could not work.
In addition he found that his earlier result on the bending of light was too small
by a factor of 2. Einstein was canonized in 1919 when this second prediction also
proved to be correct (16b).

After 1915 Einstein continued to examine problems in general relativity. He
was the first to give a theory of gravitational waves (1 5d). He was also the founder
of general relativistic cosmology, the modern theory of the universe at large (15e).
Hubble’s discovery that the universe is expanding was made in Einstein’s lifetime.
Radio galaxies, quasars, neutron stars, and, perhaps, black holes were found after
his death. These post-Einsteinian observational developments in astronomy
largely account for the great resurgence of interest in general relativity in more
recent times. A sketchy account of the developments in general relativity after 1915
up to the present appears in (15).

I return to earlier days. After 1915 Einstein’s activities in the domain of rela-
tivity became progressively less concerned with the applications of general relativ-
ity than with the search for generalization of that theory. During the early years
following the discovery of general relativity, the aim of that search appeared to be
highly plausible: according to general relativity the very existence of the gravita-
tional field is inalienably woven into the geometry of the physical world. There
was nothing equally compelling about the existence of the electromagnetic field,

PURPOSE AND PLAN

at that time the only field other than that of gravity known to exist (17a). Rie-
mannian geometry does not geometrize electromagnetism. Should not one there-
fore try to invent a more general geometry in which electromagnetism would be
just as fundamental as gravitation? If the special theory of relativity had unified
electricity and magnetism and if the general theory had geometrized gravitation,
should not one try next to unify and geometrize electromagnetism and gravity?
After he experimentally unified electricity and magnetism, had not Michael Far-
aday tried to observe whether gravity could induce electric currents by letting
pieces of metal drop from the top of the lecture room in the Royal Institution to
a cushion on the floor? Had he not written, ‘If the hope should prove well-
founded, how great and mighty and sublime in its hitherto unchangeable character
is the force I am trying to deal with, and how large may be the new domain of
knowledge that may be opened to the mind of man’? And when his experiment
showed no effect, had he not written, ‘They do not shake my strong feeling of the
existence of a relation between gravity and electricity, though they give no proof
that such a relation exists’? [Wl] Thoughts and visions such as these led Einstein
to his program for a unified field theory. Its purpose was neither to incorporate
the unexplained nor to resolve any paradox. It was purely a quest for harmony.

On his road to general relativity, Einstein had found the nineteenth century
geometry of Riemann waiting for him. In 1915 the more general geometries which
he and others would soon be looking for did not yet exist. They had to be invented.
It should be stressed that the unification program was not the only spur to the
search for new geometries. In 1916, mathematicians, acknowledging the stimulus
of general relativity, began the very same pursuit for their own reasons. Thus
Einstein’s work was the direct cause of the development of a new branch of math-
ematics, the theory of connections (17c).

During the 1920s and 1930s, ii became evident that there exist forces other than
those due to gravitation and electromagnetism. Einstein chose to ignore those new
forces although they were not and are not any less fundamental than the two
which have been known about longer. He continued the old search for a unifica-
tion of gravitation and electromagnetism, following one path, failing, trying a new
one. He would study worlds having more than the familiar four dimensions of
space and time (17b) or new world geometries in four dimensions (17d). It was
to no avail.

In recent years, the quest for the unification of all forces has become a central
theme in physics (17e). The methods are new. There has been distinct progress
(2b). But Einstein’s dream, the joining of gravitation to other forces, has so far not
been realized.

In concluding this tour, I return to Einstein’s contributions to the quantum
theory. I must add that, late in 1906, Einstein became the founder of the quantum
theory of the solid state by giving the essentially correct explanation of the anom-
alous behavior of hard solids, such as diamond, for example, at low temperatures
(20). It is also necessary to enlarge on the remark made previously concerning the

INTRODUCTORY

statistical origins of the light-quantum hypothesis. Einstein’s paper of March
1905 contains not one but two postulates. First, the light-quantum was conceived
of as a parcel of energy as far as the properties of pure radiation (no coupling to
matter) are concerned. Second, Einstein made the assumption— he called it the
heuristic principle — that also in its coupling to matter (that is, in emission and
absorption), light is created or annihilated in similar discrete parcels of energy
(19c). That, I believe, was Einstein’s one revolutionary contribution to physics
(2). It upset all existing ideas about the interaction between light and matter. 1
shall describe in detail the various causes for the widespread disbelief in the heu-
ristic principle (19f), a resistance which did not weaken after other contributions
of Einstein were recognized as outstanding or even after the predictions for the
photoelectric eflfect, made on the grounds of the heuristic principle, turned out to
be highly successful (19e).

The light-quantum, a parcel of energy, slowly evolved into the photon, a parcel
of energy and momentum (21), a fundamental particle with zero mass and unit
spin. Never was a proposal for a new fundamental particle resisted more strongly
than this one for the photon (18b). No one resisted the photon longer than Bohr
(22). All resistance came to an end when experiments on the scattering of light by
electrons (the Compton effect) proved that Einstein was right (21 f, 22).

Quantum mechanics was born within a few months of the settling of the photon
issue. In (25) I describe in detail Einstein’s response to this new development. His
initial belief that quantum mechanics contained logical inconsistencies (25a) did
not last long. Thereafter, he became convinced that quantum mechanics is an
incomplete description of nature (25c). Nevertheless, he acknowledged that the
nonrelativistic version of quantum mechanics did constitute a major advance. His
proposal of a Nobel prize for Schroedinger and Heisenberg is but one expression
of that opinion (31).

However, Einstein never had a good word for the relativity version of quantum
mechanics known as quantum field theory. Its successes did not impress him.
Once, in 1912, he said of the quantum theory that the more successful it is, the
sillier it looks (20). When speaking of successful physical theories, he would, in
his later years, quote the example of the old gravitation theory (26). Had Newton
not been successful for more than two centuries? And had his theory not turned
out to be incomplete?

Einstein himself never gave up the search for a theory that would incorporate
quantum phenomena but would nevertheless satisfy his craving for causality. His
vision of a future interplay of relativity and quantum theory in a unified field
theory is the subject of the last scientific chapter of this book (26), in which I
return to the picture drawn in the preface.

Finally, I may be permitted to summarize my own views. Newtonian causality
is gone for good. The synthesis of relativity and the quantum theory is incomplete
(2). In the absence of this synthesis, any assessment of Einstein’s vision must be
pan of open history.

PURPOSE AND PLAN

The lour ends here. General comments on relativity and quantum theory come
next, followed by a sketch of Einstein’s early years. Then the physics begins.

References

Bl. S. Brunauer, / Wash. Acad. Sci. 69, 108, (1979).

B2. I. Berlin. Personal Impressions, pp. 145, 150. Viking, New York, 1980.

El. A. Einstein, Die Vossische Zeitung, May 23, 1916.

E2. , Sozialistische Monatshefte, 1919, p. 1055.

E3. , Neue Rundschau 33, 815 (1922).

E4. , statement prepared for the Liga fiir Menschenrechte, January 6, 1929.

E5. , letter to K. R. Leistner, September 8, 1932.

E6. in Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist (P. A. Schiipp, Ed.), p. 684. Tudor,

New York, 1949.

E7. , Bull. Soc. Fran. Phil. 22 , 97 (1923).

E8. in I. Newton, Opticks, p. vii. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1931.

E9. , Naturw. 15 , 273 (1927). English trans. in Smithsonian Report for 1927, p.

201 .

ElO. in Emanuel Libman Anniversary Volumes, Vol. 1, p. 363. International, New

York, 1932.

Ell. ,[E6l,p. 31.

E12. , Nature 119 , 467, (1927); Science 65 , 347 (1927).

El 3. Margot Einstein, letter to M. Schapiro, December 1978.

Gl. G. Gamow, My World Line, p. 148. Viking, New York, 1970.

Jl. R. Jost, letter to A. Pais, August 17, 1977.

Kl. A. Kastler, Technion- Informations, ^ 0 . 11, December 1978.

Nl. O. Nathan and H. Norden, Einstein on Peace, Schocken, New York, 1968.

01. J. R. Oppenheimer in Einstein, a Centennial Volume (A. P. French, Ed.), p. 44.
Harvard University Press, 1979.

PI. A. Pais in Niels Bohr (S. Rozental, Ed.), p. 215. Interscience, New York, 1967.
Rl. B. Russell, [Nl I, p xv.

SI. E. Salaman, Encounter, April 1979, p. 19.

Wl, L. P. Williams, Michael Faraday, pp. 468-9. Basic Books, New York, 1965.

Relativity Theory
and Quantum Theory

Einstein’s life ended . . . with a demand on us for synthesis.

W. Pauli [PI]

2a. Orderly Transitions and Revolutionary Periods

In all the history of physics, there has never been a period of transition as abrupt,
as unanticipated, and over as wide a front as the decade 1895 to 1905. In rapid
succession the experimental discoveries of X-rays (1895), the Zeeman effect
(1896), radioactivity (1896), the electron (1897), and the extension of infrared
spectroscopy into the 3 urn to 60 /nm region opened new vistas. The birth of quan-
tum theory (1900) and relativity theory (1905) marked the beginning of an era in
which the very foundations of physical theory were found to be in need of revision.
Two men led the way toward the new theoretical concepts: Max Karl Ernst Lud-
wig Planck, professor at the University of Berlin, possessed — perhaps obsessed —
by the search for the universal function of frequency and temperature, known to
exist since 1859, when Gustav Robert KirchhofT formulated his fundamental law
of blackbody radiation (19a)*; and Albert Einstein, technical expert at the Swiss
patent office in Bern, working in an isolation which deserves to be called splendid

(3).

In many superficial ways, these two men were quite unlike each other. Their
backgrounds, circumstances, temperaments, and scientific styles differed pro-
foundly. Yet there were deep similarities. In the course of addressing Planck on
the occasion of Planck’s sixtieth birthday, Einstein said:

The longing to behold . . . preestablished harmony** is the source of the inex-
haustible persistence and patience with which we see Planck devoting himself
to the most general problems of our science without letting himself be deflected
by goals which are more profitable and easier to achieve. I have often heard
that colleagues would like to attribute this attitude to exceptional will-power

*In this chapter, 1 use for the last time parenthetical notations when referring to a chapter or a
section thereof. Thus, (19a) means Chapter 19, Section a.

**An expression of Leibniz’s which Einstein considered particularly apt.

RELATIVITY THEORY AND QUANTUM THEORY

and discipline; I believe entirely wrongly so. The emotional state which enables
such achievements is similar to that of the religious person or the person in love;
the daily pursuit does not originate from a design or program but from a direct
need [El].

This overriding urge for harmony directed Einstein’s scientific life as much as it
did Planck’s. The two men admired each other greatly.

The main purpose pf this chapter is to make some introductory comments on
Einstein’s attitude to the quantum and relativity theories. To this end, it will be
helpful to recall a distinction which he liked to make between two kinds of physical
theories [E2]. Most theories, he said, are constructive, they interpret complex phe-
nomena in terms of relatively simple propositions. An example is the kinetic the-
ory of gases, in which the mechanical, thermal, and diffusional properties of gases
are reduced to molecular interactions and motions. ‘The merit of constructive the-
ories is their comprehensiveness, adaptability, and clarity.’ Then there are the
theories of principle, which use the analytic rather than the synthetic method:
‘Their starting points are not hypothetical constituents but empirically observed
general properties of phenomena.’ An example is the impossibility of a perpetuum
mobile in thermodynamics. ‘[The merit of] theories of principle [is] their logical
perfection and the security of their foundation.’ Then Einstein went on to say,
‘The theory of relativity is a theory of principle.’ These lines were written in 1919,
when relativity had already become ‘like a house with two separate stories’, the
special and the general theory. (Of course, the special theory by itself is a theory
of principle as well.)

Thus, toward the end of the decade 1895-1905 a new theory of principle had
emerged: special relativity. What was the status of quantum theory at that time?
It was neither a theory of principle nor a constructive theory. In fact, it was not
a theory at all. Planck’s and Einstein’s first results on blackbody radiation proved
that there was something wrong with the foundations of classical physics, but old
foundations were not at once replaced by new ones— as had been the case with
the special theory of relativity from its very inception (7). Peter Debye recalled
that, soon after its publication, Planck’s work was discussed in Aachen, where
Debye was then studying with Arnold Sommerfeld. Planck’s law litled the data
well, ‘but we did not know whether the quanta were something fundamentally
new or not’ [Bl].

The discovery of the quantum theory in 1900 (19a) and of special relativity in
1905 (7) have in common that neither was celebrated by press releases, dancing
in the streets, or immediate proclamations of the dawn of a new era. There all
resemblance ends. The assimilation of special relativity was a relatively fast and
easy process. It is true that great men like Hendrik Antoon Lorentz and Henri
Poincare had difficulty recognizing that this was a new theory of kinematic prin-
ciple rather than a constructive dynamic theory (8) and that the theory caused the
inevitable confusion in philosophical circles, as witness, for example, the little book

INTRODUCTORY

on the subject by Henry Bergson written as late as 1922 [B2]. Nevertheless, senior
men like Planck, as well as a new generation of theorists, readily recognized spe-
cial relativity to be fully specified by the two principles stated by Einstein in his
1905 paper (7a). All the rest was application of these theoretical principles. When
special relativity appeared, it was at once ‘all there.’ There never was an ‘old’
theory of relativity.

By contrast, the ‘old’ quantum theory, developed in the years from 1900 to
1925, progressed by unprincipled — but tasteful — invention and application of ad
hoc rules rather than by a systematic investigation of the implications of a set of
axioms. This is not to say that relativity developed in a ‘better’ or ‘healthier’ way
than did quantum physics, but rather to stress the deep-seated differences between
the evolution of the two. Nor should one underestimate the tremendous, highly
concrete, and lasting contributions of the conquistadores, Einstein among them,
who created the old quantum theory. The following four equations illustrate bet-
ter than any long dissertation what they achieved:

piyj) =

t\\i{hv/kT) — 1

(2.1)

Planck’s formula for the spectral density p of blackbody radiation in thermal equi-
librium as a function of frequency v and temperature T (/i = Planck’s constant,
k = Boltzmann’s constant, c = velocity of light), the oldest equation in the quan-
tum theory of radiation. It is remarkable that the old quantum theory would orig-
inate from the analysis of a problem as complex as blackbody radiation. From
1859 until 1926, this problem remained at the frontier of theoretical physics, first
in thermodynamics, then in electromagnetism, then in the old quantum theory,
and finally in quantum statistics;

E = hv- P,

( 2 . 2 )

Einstein’s 1905 equation for the energy E of photoelectrons liberated from a
metallic surface irradiated by light of frequency v (19e), the oldest equation in the
quantum theory of the interaction between radiation and matter;

_ / ^ Y tn^{hv/kT)

\kTj [tn^hv/kT)-\f’

(2.3)

Einstein’s 1906 equation for the specific heat c„ of one gram-atom of an idealized
crystalline solid, in which all lattice points vibrate harmonically with a unique
frequency v around their equilibrium positions {R is the gas constant) (20), the
oldest equation in the quantum theory of the solid state; and

n .L » 2iPe*m

Rydberg s constant = — r — , (2.4)

the equation given in 1913 by Niels Bohr, the oldest equation in the quantum
theory of atomic structure. Long before anyone knew what the principles of the

RELATIVITY THEORY AND QUANTUM THEORY

quantum theory were, the successes of equations like these made it evident that
such a theory had to exist. Every one of these successes was a slap in the face of
hallowed classical concepts. New inner frontiers, unexpected contraventions of
accepted knowledge, appeared in several places: the equipartition theorem of clas-
sical statistical mechanics could not be true in general (19b); electrons appeared
to be revolving in closed orbits without emitting radiation.

The old quantum theory spans a twenty-five-year period of revolution in phys-
ics, a revolution in the sense that existing order kept being overthrown. Relativity
theory, on the other hand, whether of the special or the general kind, never was
revolutionary in that sense. Its coming was not disruptive, but instead marked an
extension of order to new domains, moving the outer frontiers of knowledge still
farther out.

This state of affairs is best illustrated by a simple example. According to special
relativity, the physical sum of two velocities t;, and V 2 with a common

direction is given by

V2) =

y, + V2

(2.5)

a result obtained independently by Poincare and Einstein in 1905. This equation
contains the limit law, a(v^yc) = c, as a case of extreme novelty. It also makes
clear that for any velocities, however small, the classical answer, +

^ 2 , is no longer rigorously true. But since c is of the order of one billion miles per
hour, the equation also says that the classical answer can continue to be trusted
for all velocities to which it was applied in early times. That is the correspondence
principle of relativity, which is as old as relativity itself. The ancestors, from Gal-
ileo via Newton to Maxwell, could continue to rest in peace and glory.

It was quite otherwise with quantum theory. To be sure, after the discovery of
the specific heat expression, it was at once evident that Eq. 2.3 yields the long-
known Dulong- Petit value of 6 calories/mole (20a) at high temperature. Nor did
it take long (only five years) before the connection between Planck’s quantum
formula (Eq. 2.1) and the classical ‘Rayleigh -Einstein -Jeans limit’ {hv kT)
was established (19b). These two results indicated that the classical statistical law
of equipartition would survive in the correspondence limit of (loosely speaking)
high temperature. But there was (and is) no correspondence limit for Eqs. 2.2 and
2.4. Before 1925, nothing was proved from first principles. Only after the discov-
eries of quantum mechanics, quantum statistics, and quantum field theory did
Eqs. 2.1 to 2.4 acquire a theoretical foundation.

The main virtue of Eq. 2.5 is that it simultaneously answers two questions:
where does the new begin? where does the old fit in? The presence of the new
indicates a clear break with the past. The immediate recognizability of the old
shows that this break is what I shall call an orderly transition. On the other hand,
a revolution in science occurs if at first only the new presents itself. From that
moment until the old fits in again (it is a rule, not a law, that this always happens

INTRODUCTORY

in physics), we have a period of revolution. Thus the births of the relativities were
orderly transitions, the days of the old quantum theory were a revolutionary
period. I stress that this distinction is meant to apply to the historical process of
discovery, not to the content of one or another physical theory. (I would not argue
against calling the abandonment of the aether and the rejection of absolute simul-
taneity in 1905 and the rejection of Newton’s absolute space in 1915 amazing,
astounding, audacious, bold, brave ... or revolutionary steps.)

No one appreciated the marked differences between the evolution of relativity
and quantum theory earlier and better than Einstein, the only man who had been
instrumental in creating both. Nor, of course, was anyone better qualified than he
to pronounce on the structure of scientific revolutions. After all, he had been to the
barricades. Let us see what he had to say about this subject.

Early in 1905 he wrote a letter to a friend in which he announced his forth-
coming papers on the quantum theory and on special relativity. He called the first
paper ‘very revolutionary.’ About the second one he only remarked that ‘its kine-
matic part will interest you’ [E31.

In a report of a lecture on relativity that Einstein gave in London on June 13,
1921, we read, ‘He [Einstein] deprecated the idea that the new principle was
revolutionary. It was, he told his audience, the direct outcome and, in a sense, the
natural completion of the work of Faraday, Maxwell, and Lorentz. Moreover
there was nothing specially, certainly nothing intentionally, philosophical about
it....’[Nl].

In the fall of 1919, in the course of a discussion with a student, Einstein handed
her a cable which had informed him that the bending of light by the sun was in
agreement with his general relativistic prediction. The student asked what he
would have said if there had been no confirmation. Einstein replied, ‘Da kdnnt’
mir halt der liebe Gott leid tun. Die Theorie stimmt doch.’ Then I would have to
pity the dear Lord. The theory is correct anyway [Rlj. (This statement is not at
variance with the fact that Einstein was actually quite excited when he first heard
the news of the bending of light (16b).)

These three stories characterize Einstein’s lifelong attitude to the relativity the-
ories: they were orderly transitions in which, as he experienced it, he played the
role of the instrument of the Lord, Who, he deeply believed, was subtle but not
malicious.

Regarding Einstein’s judgment of his own role in quantum physics, there is
first of all his description of his 1905 paper ‘On a heuristic point of view concern-
ing the generation and transformation of light’ as very revolutionary (19c). Next
we have his own summary: ‘What I found in the quantum domain are only occa-
sional insights or fragments which were produced in the course of fruitless strug-
gles with the grand problem. I am ashamed* to receive at this time such a great
honor for this’ [E4]. Those words he spoke on June 28, 1929, the day he received

*I have translated Ich bin beschdmt as I am ashamed rather than as / am embarrassed because I
believe that the first alternative more accurately reflects Einstein’s mood

RELATIVITY THEORY AND QUANTUM THEORY

the Planck medal from Planck’s own hands. By then the revolutionary period of
the old quantum theory — which coincided exactly with the years of Einstein’s
highest creativity! — had made way for nonrelativistic quantum mechanics (and
the beginning of its relativistic extension), a theory which by 1929 was recognized
by nearly everyone as a new theory of principle.

Einstein dissented. To him, who considered relativity theory no revolution at
all, the quantum theory was still in a state of revolution and — as he saw it
remained so for the rest of his life; according to him the old did not yet fit in
properly. That is the briefest characterization of Einstein’s scientific philosophy.
He was more deeply commited to orderly transition than to revolution. He could
be radical but never was a rebel.

In the same speech in 1929, he also said, ‘I admire to the highest degree the
achievements of the younger generation of physicists which goes by the name
quantum mechanics and believe in the deep level of truth of that theory; but I
believe that the restriction to statistical laws will be a passing one.’ The parting
of ways had begun. Einstein had started his solitary search for a theory of prin-
ciple that would maintain classical causality in an orderly way and from which
quantum mechanics should be derivable as a constructive theory.

Far more fascinating to me than the substance of Einstein’s critique of quantum
mechanics— to be discussed in detail in (26)— is the question of motivation. What
drove Einstein to this search which he himself called ‘quite bizarre as seen from
the outside’ [E51? Why would he continue ‘to sing my solitary little old song’ [E6]
for the rest of his life? As I shall discuss in (27), the answer has to do with a grand
design which Einstein conceived early, before the discovery of quantum mechanics,
for a synthetic physical theory It was to be a theory of particles and fields in
which general relativity and quantum theory would be synthesized. This he failed
to achieve.

So to date have we all.

The phenomena to lie explained by a theory of principle have become enor-
mously richer since the days when Einstein made the first beginnings with his
program. Theoretical progress has been very impressive, but an all-embracing the-
ory does not exist. The need for a new synthesis is felt more keenly as the phe-
nomena grow more complex.

Therefore any assessment of Einstein’s visions can be made only from a vantage
point that is necessarily tentative. It may be useful to record ever so briefly what
this vantage point appears to be to at least one physicist. This is done in the fol-
lowing ‘time capsule,’ which is dedicated to generations of physicists yet unborn.*

2b. A Time Capsule

When Einstein and others embarked on their programs of unification, three par-
ticles (in the modern sense) were known to exist, the electron, the proton, and the

♦The following section is meant to provide a brief record without any attempt at further explanation
or reference to literature It can be skipped without loss of continuity

INTRODUCTORY

photon, and there were two fundamental interactions, electromagnetism and grav-
itation. At present the number of particles runs into the hundreds. A further
reduction to more fundamental units appears inevitable. It is now believed that
there are at least four fundamental interactions. The unification of all four types
of forces— gravitational, electromagnetic, weak, and strong— is an active topic of
current exploration. It has not been achieved as yet.

Relativistic quantum field theories (in the sense of special relativity) are the
principal tools for these explorations. Our confidence in the general field theoret-
ical approach rests first and foremost on the tremendous success of quantum elec-
trodynamics (QED). One number, the g factor of the electron, may illustrate both
the current level of predictability of this theory and the level of experimental pre-
cision which has been reached;

%( - 2^ = { ^ ^ 10->' predicted by pure QED*

^ 1 1 159 652 200 (40) X 10"’' observed

It has nevertheless become evident that this branch of field theory will merge with
the theory of other fields.

‘If we could have presented Einstein with a synthesis of his general relativity
and the quantum theory, then the discussion with him would have been consid-
erably easier’ [PI]. To date, this synthesis is beset with conceptual and technical
difficulties. The existence of singularities associated with gravitational collapse is
considered by some an indication for the incompleteness of the general relativistic
equations. It is not known whether or not these singularities are smoothed out by
quantum effects.

There is hope that gravitational waves will be observed in this century (15d).

The ultimate unification of weak and electromagnetic interactions has probably
not yet been achieved, but a solid beach-head appears to have been established in
terms of local non-Abelian gauge theories with spontaneous symmetry breakdown.
As a result, it is now widely believed that weak interactions are mediated by mas-
sive vector mesons. Current expectations are that such mesons will be observed
within the decade.

It is widely believed that strong interactions are also mediated by local non-
Abelian gauge fields. Their symmetry is supposed to be unbroken so that the cor-
responding vector mesons are massless. The dynamics of these ‘non-Abelian pho-
tons’ are supposed to prohibit their creation as single free particles. The technical
exploration of this theory is in its early stages.

Promising steps have been made toward grand unification, the union of weak,
electromagnetic, and strong interactions in one compaa, non-Abelian gauge

*In this prediction (which docs not include small contributions from muons and hadrons), the best
value of the fine-structure constant a has been used as an input: a~' « 137.035 963 (15). The
principal source of uncertainty in the predicted value of (^ - 2) stems from the experimental uncer-
tainties of a, leading to the error (127). The error (75) is mainly due to uncertainties in the eighth
order calculation [Kl].

RELATIVITY THEORY AND QUANTUM THEORY

group. In most grand unified theories the proton is unstable. News about the pro-
ton’s fate is eagerly awaited at this time.

Superunification, the union of all four forces, is the major goal. Some believe
that it is near and that supergravity will provide the answer. Others are not so
sure.

All modern work on unification may be said to represent a program of geo-
metrization that resembles Einstein’s earlier attempts, although the manifold sub-
ject to geometrization is larger than he anticipated and the quantum framework
of the program would not have been to his liking.

In the search for the correct field theory, model theories have been examined
which reveal quite novel possibilities for the existence of extended structures
(solitons, instantons, monopoles). In the course of these investigations, topological
methods have entered this area of physics. More generally, it has become clear in
the past decade that quantum field theory is much richer in structure than was
appreciated earlier. The renormalizability of non-Abelian gauge fields with spon-
taneous symmetry breakdown, asymptotic freedom, and supersymmetry are cases
in pint.

The proliferation of new particles has led to attempts at a somewhat simplifed
underlying description. According to the current picture, the basic constituents of
matter are: two classes of spin-)^ particles, the leptons and the quarks; a variety
of spin-1 gauge bosons, some massless, some massive; and (more tentatively) some
fundamental spin-zero particles. The only gauge boson observed so far is the pho-
ton. To date, three kinds of charged leptons have been detected. The quarks are
hypthetical constituents of the observed hadrons. To date, at least five spcies of
quarks have been identified. The dynamics of the strong interactions are suppsed
to prohibit the creation of quarks as isolated, free particles. This prohibition, con-
finement, has not as yet been implemented theoretically in a convincing way. No
criterion is known which enables one to state how many species of leptons and of
quarks should exist.

Weak, electromagnetic, and strong interactions have distinct intrinsic symmetry
proprties, but this hierarchy of symmetries is not well understood theoretically.
Perhaps the most puzzling are the small effects of noninvariance under space
reflection and the even smaller effects of noninvariance under time reversal. It
adds to the puzzlement that the latter pl^nomenon has been observed so far only
in a single instance, namely, in the K°-K° system. (These phenomena were first
observed after Einstein’s death. I have often wondered what might have been his
reactions to these discoveries, given his ‘conviction that pure mathematical con-
struction enables us to discover the concepts and the laws connecting them’ [E7].)

It is not known why electric charge is quantized, but it is plausible that this
will be easily explicable in the framework of a future gauge theory.

In summary, physicists today are hard at work to meet Einstein’s demands for
synthesis, using methods of which he probably would be critical. Since about 1970,
there has been much more promise for progress than in the two or three decades

INTRODUCTORY

before. Yet the theoretical structures now under investigation are not as simple
and economical as one would wish. The evidence is overwhelming that the theory
of particles and fields is still incomplete. Despite much progress, Einstein’s earlier
complaint remains valid to this day: The theories which have gradually been
associated with what has been observed have led to an unbearable accumulation
of independent assumptions’ [E8]. At the same time, no experimental evidence or
internal contradiction exists to indicate that the postulates of general relativity, of
special relativity, or of quantum mechanics are in mutual conflict or in need of
revision or refinement. We are therefore in no position to affirm or deny that these
postulates will forever remain unmodified.

I conclude this time capsule with a comment by Einstein on the meaning of the
occurrence of dimensionless constants (such as the fine-structure constant or the
electron -proton mass ratio) in the laws of physics, a subject about which he knew
nothing, we know nothing: ‘In a sensible theory there are no [dimensionless] num-
bers whose values are determinable only empirically. I can, of course, not prove
that . . . dimensionless constants in the laws of nature, which from a purely logical
point of view can just as well have other values, should not exist. To me in my
‘Gottvertrauen’ [faith in God] this seems evident, but there might well be few who
have the same opinion’ [E9].

References

BI. U. Benz, Arnold Sommerfeld, p. 74. Wissenschaftliche Verlags Gesellschaft, Stutt-
gart, 1975.

B2. H. Bergson, Duree et Stmultaneite. A Propos de la Theorie d’Einstem. Alcan, Paris,
1922.

El. A. Einstein, Ansprachen in der Deutschen Physikalischen Gesellschaft, p. 29.
Muller, Karlsruhe, 1918.

E2. , The London Times, November 28, 1919.

E3. , letter to C. Habicht, undated, most probably written in March 1905.

E4. , Forschungen und Fortschritte 5, 248 (1929).

E5. , letter to L. de Broglie, February 8, 1954.

E6. , letter to N. Bohr, April 4, 1949.

E7. , On the Method of Theoretical Physics. Oxford University Press, Oxford,

1933. Reprinted in Philos. Sci. 1 , 162, (1934).

Eg ^ Lettres d Maurice Solovtne, p. 130. Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1956.

E9. , letters to I. Rosenthal-Schneider, October 13, 1945, and March 24, 1950.

Reprinted in [Rl], pp. 36, 41.

Kl. T. Kinoshita and W. B. Lindquist, Phys. Rev. Lett. 47 , 1573 (1981).

Nl. Aa/wre 107, 504 (1921).

PI. W. Pauli, Neue Ziincher Zeitung, January 12, 1958. Reprinted in W. Pauli Col-
lected Scientific Papers, Vol. 2, p. 1362. Interscience, New York, 1964.

Rl. I. Rosenthal-Schneider, Reality and Scientific Truth, p, 74. Wayne State University
Press, 1980.

Portrait of the Physicist
as a Young Man

Apart . 4 Away (rom others in action or function; separately,

independently, individually

Oxford English Dictionary

It is not known whether Hermann Einstein became a partner in the featherbed
enterprise of Israel and Levi before or after August 8, 1876. Certain it is that by
then he, his mother, and all his brothers and sisters, had been living for some time
in Ulm, in the kingdom of Wiirttemberg. On that eighth of August, Hermann
married Pauline Koch in the synagogue in Cannstatt. The young couple settled
in Ulm, first on the Miinsterplatz, then, at the turn of 1878-9, on the Bahnhof-
strasse. On a sunny Friday in the following March their first child was born, a
citizen of the new German empire, which Wiirttemberg had joined in 1871. On
the following day Hermann went to register the birth of his son. In translation the
birth certificate reads, ‘No. 224 Ulm, March 15, 1879. Today, the merchant Her-
mann Einstein, residing in Ulm, Bahnhofstrasse 135, of the Israelitic faith, per-
sonally known, appeared before the undersigned registrar, and stated that a child
of the male sex, who has received the name Albert, was born in Ulm, in his res-
idence, to his wife Pauline Einstein, nee Koch, of the Israelitic faith, on March
14 of the year 1879, at 11:30 a.m. Read, confirmed, and signed: Hermann Ein-
stein. The Registrar, Hartman.’ In 1944 the house on the Bahnhofstrasse was
destroyed during an air attack. The birth certificate can still be found in the Ulm
archives.

Albert was the first of Hermann and Pauline’s two children. On November 18,
1881, their daughter, Maria, was born. There may never have been a human
being to whom Einstein felt closer than his sister Maja (as she was always called).
The choice of nonancestral names for both children illustrates the assimilationist
disposition in the Einstein family, a trend widespread among German Jews in the
nineteenth century. Albert was named (if one may call it that) after his grand-
father Abraham,* but it is not known how the name Maria was chosen. ‘A liberal

* Helen Dukas, private communication.

INTRODUCTORY

spirit, nondogmatic in regard to religion, prevailed in the family. Both parents had
themselves been raised that way. Religious matters and precepts were not dis-
cussed’ [Ml]. Albert’s father was proud of the fact that Jewish rites were not
practised in his home [Rl].

Maja’s biographical essay about her brother, completed in 1924, is the main
source of family recollections about Albert’s earliest years. It informs us of the
mother’s fright at the time of Albert’s birth because of the unusually large and
angular back of the baby’s head (that uncommon shape of the skull was to be
permanent); of a grandmother’s first reaction upon seeing the newest member of
the family; ‘Viel zu dick! Viel zu dick!’ (much too heavy!); and of early apprehen-
sions that the child might be backward because of the unusually long time before
it could speak [M2]. These fears were unfounded. According to one of Einstein’s
own earliest childhood memories, ‘when he was between two and three, he formed
the ambition to speak in whole sentences. He would try each sentence out on
himself by saying it softly. Then, when it seemed all right, he would say it out
loud’ [SI]. He was very quiet as a young child, preferring to play by himself. But
there was early passion, too. On occasion, he would throw a tantrum. ‘At such
moments his face would turn pale, the tip of his nose would become white, and
he would lose control of himself [M2]. On several such occasions, dear little
Albert threw things at his sister. These tantrums ceased when he was about seven.

The relationship between the parents was an harmonious and very loving one,
with the mother having the stronger personality. She was a talented pianist who
brought music into the home so the children’s musical education started early.
Maja learned to play the piano. Albert took violin instruction from about the time
he was six until he was thirteen. The violin was to become his beloved instrument,
although playing remained a burdensome duty to him through most of these early
years, in which he took lessons from Herr Schmied [R2]. He taught himself to
play the piano a bit and grew especially fond of improvising on that instrument.

Hermann Einstein, an unruffled, kind-hearted, and rather passive man, loved
by all acquaintances [R3], was fond of literature and in the evenings would read
Schiller and Heine aloud to his family [R4]. (Throughout Albert’s life, Heine
remained one of his most beloved authors.) In his high school years, Hermann
had shown evidence of mathematical talent, but his hopes for university study
were not realized because the family could not afford it.

Hermann’s venture into the featherbed business was not very successful. Shortly
after Albert’s birth, Hermann’s enterprising and energetic younger brother Jakob,
an engineer, proposed that together they start a small gas and water installation
business in Munich. Hermann agreed to take care of the business end and also to
invest a substantial part of his and Pauline’s funds in the enterprise. In 1880
Hermann and his family moved to Munich, where they registered on June 21.
The modest undertaking opened on October 1 1 and had a promising beginning,
but Jakob had greater ambitions. A few years later, he proposed starting an elec-
trotechnical factory to produce dynamos, arc lamps, and electrical measuring
equipment for municipal electric power stations and lighting systems. He also

PORTRAIT OF THE PHYSICIST AS A YOUNG MAN

suggested that the brothers jointly buy a house in Sendling, a suburb of Munich.
These plans were realized in 1885 with financial support from the family, espe-
cially Pauline’s father. The firm was officially registered on May 6, 1885.

Albert and Maja loved their new home on the Adelreiterstrasse with its large
garden shaded by big trees. It appears that business also went well in the begin-
ning. In a book entitled Versorgung von Stddten mit elektrischem Strom, we find
four pages devoted to the ‘Elektrotechnische Fabrik J. Einstein und Co. in
Miinchen’ from which we learn that the brothers had supplied power stations in
Miinchen-Schwabing as well as in Varese and Susa in Italy [Ul].

Thus Einstein spent his earliest years in a warm and stable milieu that was
also stimulating. In his late sixties he singled out one particular experience from
that period: ‘I experienced a miracle ... as a child of four or five when my father
showed me a compass’ [El]. It excited the boy so much that ‘he trembled and
grew cold’ [R5). ‘There had to be something behind objects that lay deeply hidden
. . .the development of [our] world of thought is in a certain sense a flight away
from the miraculous’ [Elj. Such private experiences contributed far more to Ein-
stein’s growth than formal schooling.

At the age of five, he received his first instruction at home. This episode came
to an abrupt end when Einstein had a tantrum and threw a chair at the woman
who taught him. At about age six he entered public school, the Volksschule. He
was a reliable, persistent, and slow-working pupil who solved his mathematical
problems with self-assurance though not without computational errors. He did
very well. In August 1886, Pauline wrote to her mother: ‘Yesterday Albert
received his grades, he was again number one, his report card was brilliant’ [Elaj.
But Albert remained a quiet child who did not care to play with his schoolmates.
His private games demanded patience and tenacity. Building a house of cards was
one of his favorites.

In October 1888 Albert moved from the Volksschule to the Luitpold Gymna-
sium, which was to be his school till he was fifteen. In all these years he earned
either the highest or the next-highest mark in mathematics and in Latin [HI]. But
on the whole, he disliked those school years; authoritarian teachers servile stu-
dents, rote learning— none of these agreed with him. Further, ‘he had a natural
antipathy for . . . gymnastics and sports — He easily became dizzy and tired’
[R61. He felt isolated and made few friends at school.

There was no lack of extracurricular stimuli, however. Uncle Jakob would pose
mathematical problems and after he had solved them ‘the boy experienced a deep
feeling of happiness’ [M3]. From the time Albert was ten until he turned fifteen.
Max Talmud, a regular visitor to the family home, contributed importantly to his
education. Talmud, a medical student with little money, came for dinner at the
Einstein’s every Thursday night. He gave Einstein popular books on science to
read and, later, the writings of Kant. The two would spend hours discussing sci-
ence and philosophy.* ‘In all these years I never saw him reading any light lit-

*Aftcr Talmud moved to the United States, he changed his name to Talmey. A book he wrote con-
tains recollections of his early acquaintance with Einstein [T1 j.

INTRODUCTORY

erature. Nor did I ever see him in the company of schoolmates or other boys of
his age,’ Talmud recalled later [T2]. In those years, ‘his only diversion was music,
he already played Mozart and Beethoven sonatas, accompanied by his mother’
[M4]. Einstein also continued to study mathematics on his own. At the age of
twelve he experienced a second miracle; he was given a small book on Euclidean
geometry [H2], which he later referred to as the holy geometry book. ‘The clarity
and certainty of its contents made an indescribable impression on me’ [El]. From
age twelve to age sixteen, he studied differential and integral calculus by himself.

Bavarian law required that all children of school age receive religious education.
At the Volksschule, only instruction in Catholicism was provided. Einstein was
taught the elements of Judaism at home by a distant relative [M5]. When he went
to the Luitpold Gymnasium, this instruction continued at school. As a result of
this inculcation, Einstein went through an intense religious phase when he was
about eleven years old. His feelings were of such ardor that he followed religious
precepts in detail. For example, he ate no pork [M6]. Later, in his Berlin days,
he told a close friend that during this period he had composed several songs in
honor of God, which he sang enthusiastically to himself on his way to school [S2].
This interlude came to an abrupt end a year later as a result of his exposure to
science. He did not become bar mitzvah. He never mastered Hebrew. When he
was fifty, Einstein wrote to Oberlehrer Heinrich Friedmann, his religion teacher
at the Gymnasium, ‘I often read the Bible, but its original text has remained
inaccessible to me’ [E2].

There is another story of the Munich days that Einstein himself would occa-
sionally tell with some glee. At the Gymnasium a teacher once said to him that
he, the teacher, would be much happier if the boy were not in his class. Einstein
replied that he had done nothing wrong. The teacher answered, ‘Yes, that is true.
But you sit there in the back row and smile, and that violates the feeling of respect
which a teacher needs from his class’ [SI, S2].

The preceding collection of stories about Einstein the young boy demonstrates
the remarkable extent to which his most characteristic personal traits were native
rather than acquired. The infant who at first was slow to speak, then becomes
number one at school (the widespread belief that he was a poor pupil is
unfounded) turned into the man whose every scientific triumph was preceded by
a long period of quiet gestation. The boy who sat in the classroom and smiled
became the old man who — as described in Chapter 1 — laughed because he
thought the authorities handling the Oppenheimer case were f(X)ls. In his later
years, his pacifist convictions would lead him to speak out forcefully against arbi-
trary authority. However, in his personal and scientific conduct, he was not a
rebel, one who resists authority, nor — except once*— a revolutionary, one who

•Einstein’s one truly revolutionary contribution is his light-quantum paper of 1905. It is significant
that he never believed that the physical meaning of the light-quantum hypothesis had been fully
understood. These are matters to which 1 shall return in later chapters.

PORTRAIT OF THE PHYSICIST AS A YOUNG MAN

aims to overthrow authority. Rather, he was so free that any form of authority
but the one of reason seemed irresistibly funny to him. On another issue, his brief
religious ardor left no trace, just as in his later years he would often wax highly
enthusiastic about a scientific idea, then drop it as of no consequence. About his
religious phase, Einstein himself later wrote, ‘It is clear to me that [this] lost reli-
gious paradise of youth was a first attempt to liberate myself from the “only-
personal”’ [E3], an urge that stayed with him all his life. In his sixties, he once
commented that he had sold himself body and soul to science, being in flight from
the ‘E and the ‘we’ to the ‘it’ [E4|. Yet he did not seek distance between himself
and other people. The detachment lay within and enabled him to walk through
life immersed in thought. What is so uncommon about this man is that at the
same time he was neither out of touch with the world nor aloof.

Another and most important characteristic of Einstein is already evident in the
child quietly at play by itself: his ‘apartness.’ We also see this in the greater
importance of private experience than of formal schooling and will see it again in
his student days, when self-study takes precedence over class attendance, and in
his days at the patent office in Bern when he does his most creative work almost
without personal contact with the physics community. It is also manifested in his
relations to other human beings and to authority. Apartness was to serve him well
in his single-handed and single-minded pursuits, most notably on his road from
the special to the general theory of relativity. This quality is also strongly in evi-
dence during the second half of his life, when he maintained a profoundly skeptical
attitude toward quantum mechanics. Finally, apartness became a practical neces-
sity to him, in order to protect his cherished privacy from a world hungry for
legend and charisma.

Let us return to the Munich days. Hermann’s business, successful initially,
began to stagnate. Signor Garrone, the Italian representative, suggested moving
the factory to Italy, where prospects appeared much better. Jakob was all for it;
his enthusiasm carried Hermann along. In June 1894, the factory in Sendling was
liquidated, the house sold, and the family moved to Milan. All except Albert, who
was to stay behind to finish school. The new factory, ‘Einstein and Gai rone,’ was.
established in Pavia. Some time in 1895, Hermann and his family moved from
Milan to Pavia, where they settled at Via Foscolo 11 [S3].

Alone in Munich, Albert was depressed and nervous [M4]. He missed his fam-
ily and disliked school. Since he was now sixteen years old, the prospect of military
service began to weigh on him.* Without consulting his parents, he decided to join
them in Italy. With the help of a certificate from his family doctor attesting to

*By law, a boy could leave Germany only before the age of seventeen without having to return for
military service. Einstein’s revulsion against military service started when, as a very young boy, he
and his parents watched a military parade. The movements of men without any apparent will of
their own frightened the boy. His parents had to promise him that he would never become a soldier
[R4].

INTRODUCTORY

PORTRAIT OF THE PHYSICIST AS A YOUNG MAN

In 1896 Einstein’s status changed from that of German high school pupil in
Aarau to that of stateless student at the ETH. Upon payment of three mark, he
received a document, issued in Ulm on January 28, 1896, which stated that he
was no longer a German (more precisely, a Wiirttemberger) citizen. In the fall he
successfully passed the Matura with the following grades (maximum = 6): Ger-
man 5, Italian 5, history 6, geography 4, algebra 6, geometry 6, descriptive geom-
etry 6, physics 6, chemistry 5, natural history 5, drawing (art) 4, drawing (tech-
nical) 4. On October 29 he registered as a resident of Zurich and became a student
at the ETH. Upon satisfactory completion of the four-year curriculum, he would
qualify as a Fachlehrer, a specialized teacher, in mathematics and physics at a
high school. Throughout his student years, from 1896 to 1900, Einstein lived on
an allowance of one hundred Swiss francs per month, of which he saved twenty
each month to pay for his Swiss naturalization papers.*

At this time, however, his family was in financial trouble. Hermann and
Jakob’s factory in Pavia failed and had to be liquidated in 1896. Most of the
family funds poured into the enterprise were lost. Jakob found employment with
a large firm. Hermann decided once more to start an independent factory, in
Milan this time. Albert warned his father in vain against this new venture and
also visited an uncle in Germany to urge him to refrain from further financial
support. His advice was not followed. The Einsteins moved back to Milan and
began anew. Two years later Hermann again had to give up. At that time, Albert
wrote to Maja, ‘The misfortune of my poor parents, who for so many years have
not had a happy moment, weighs most heavily on me. It also hurts me deeply that
I as a grown-up must be a passive witness . . . without being able to do even the
smallest thing about it. I am nothing but a burden to my relatives. ... It would
surely be better if I did not live at all. Only the thought . . . that year after year
I do not allow myself a pleasure, a diversion, keeps me going and must protect me
often from despair’ [M8]. This melancholy mood passed when his father found
new work, again related to the installation of electrical power stations.

Einstein’s student days did have their pleasant moments. He would allow him •
self an occasional evening at a concert or a theatre or at a Kaffeehaus to talk with
friends. He spent happy hours with the distinguished historian Alfred Stern and
his family, and with the family of Marcel Grossmann, a fellow student and friend.
His acquaintance in Zurich with Michele Angelo Besso grew into a life-long
friendship. Then and later he could savor the blessings of friendship and the
beauty of music and literature. But, already as a young man, nothing could dis-
tract him from his destiny, which with poetic precision he put in focus at the age
of eighteen: ‘Strenuous labor and the contemplation of God’s nature are the angels
which, reconciling, fortifying, and yet mercilessly severe, will guide me through
the tumult of life’ [E61.

•In the Tagesblatt der Stadt Zurich of 1895, one finds the following typical advertisements: small
furnished room SF 20/month; two daily hot meals in a boarding house SF 1.40/day without wine;
a better room with board SF 70/month. (I thank Res Jost for finding this out for me.) Thus Ein-
stein’s allowance was modest but not meager.

INTRODUCTORY

/ ^

^ fitYvt^tixx^ye^ yf{iitAy* ^ 'tx

, ^2iU< ->wV^ ^ ^

.,>%'*^»^ 'oAp-t-f y-e^-xx-t^

aCt

1^ >^W

ZZf /w** A<» x

c^t C't^ *** t.'Xv^^ .

Einstein’s essay written in Aarau, for which he received the grade 3 to 4 (out of 6).
Courtesy Staatsarchiv Kanton Aargau.

PORTRAIT OF THE PHYSICIST AS A YOUNG MAN

ttA^r

Oi^^' ^ /' j j , y^n y^" ^

^ < ^ ii» <l » y' «>'»

r/*'

Up-A

INTRODUCTORY

‘Most of the time I worked in the physical laboratory, fascinated by the direct
contact with observation,* Einstein later wrote about his years at the ETH [E7].
However, his experimental projects were not received with enthusiasm by his pro-
fessor, Heinrich Friedrich Weber. In particular, Einstein was not allowed to con-
duct an experiment on the earth’s movement against the aether [R8].* At one
point Weber is supposed to have said to Einstein: ‘You are a smart boy, Einstein,
a very smart boy. But you have one great fault: you do not let yourself be told
anything’ [S5]. Einstein’s fascination with experiment must have been dampened.
It is recorded in the Protokollbuch of the mathematics-physics section of the ETH
that he received a strong warning fVerzveisJ because he neglected his laboratory
work.

Einstein, in turn, was not impressed with Weber’s physics courses. He ‘did not
care much for [Weber’s] introduction to theoretical physics because he was dis-
appointed not to learn anything new about Maxwell theory As a typical rep-

resentative of classical physics, [Weber] simply ignored everything which came
after Helmholtz [S6]. He followed some other courses with intense interest, how-
ever.** On several later occasions, he singled out Adolf Hurwitz and Hermann
Minkowski as excellent mathematics teachers [R9, E6].f But on the whole Ein-
stein did not excel in regular course attendance. He relied far more on self-study.
As a student he read the works of Kirchhoff, Hertz, and Helmholtz; learned Max-
well theory from the first edition of Einjuhrung in die Maxwellsche Theone der
Elektrizitdt by August Fdppl, which had come out in 1894 [FI]; read Mach’s
book on mechanics, ‘a book which, with its critical attitudes toward basic concepts
and basic laws, made a deep and lasting impression on me’ [S8]; and studied
papers by Lorentz and by Boltzmann.^ Among other subjects which drew his
attention was the work of Darwin [R9].

‘In all there were only two examinations; for the rest one could do what one
wanted ... a freedom which I thoroughly enjoyed ... up to a few months before
the examination’ [E9]. These few-month periods were made easy for Einstein
because Marcel Grossmann made available his lecture notes, beautifully written,
meticulously organized. § Nevertheless, these times of working under orders
imposed by others were an ordeal to him. It took him a year after his final exam-
ination to fully regain his taste for physics [E9]. His final grades were 5 each for
theoretical physics, experimental physics, and astronomy; 5.5 for the theory of

•See Section 6d.

••For a complete list of Einstein’s four-year curriculum, see IS7],

fit is of interest for Einstein’s later work on general relativity that he also attended some of Geiser’s
lectures on differential geometry (Kl, RIO]. I discuss Geiscr’s influence in Section 12b.

|I have not found any evidence for the correspondence between Boltzmann and Einstein referred to
in 1M91 and lS9i.

SThese lecture notes are now in the historical <x>llection of the library in Zurich.

PORTRAIT OF THE PHYSICIST AS A YOUNG MAN

functions; 4.5 for an essay on heat conductivity (out of a maximum of 6). And so,
in August 1900, Einstein became qualified as a Fachlehrer, together with three
other students, who each immediately obtained positions as assistants at the ETH
fS5]. A fifth student, Mileva Marie, did not pass.* Einstein himself was jobless.

It was a disappointment for him. He never quite forgave Weber for holding out
an assistantship and then letting the matter drop.** In September he wrote to
Hurwitz, asking if he could be considered for a vacant assistantship [El 1]. A few
days later, he wrote again, ‘I note with great joy that there is a prospect of obtain-
ing the position’ [El 2]. Nothing came of this, however. And so as the year ended,
he was still without work.

However, there were some satisfactions. In December 1900 he finished his first
scientific paper, dealing with intermolecular forces, and submitted it from Zurich
to the Annalen der Physik [E13). On February 21, 1901, he was granted the
Swiss citizenship for which he had saved so long.f For the rest of his life, he
remained a citizen of Switzerland, ‘the most beautiful corner on earth I know’
[SIO].

Early in 1901 Einstein again tried to find a university position. ‘I have been
with my parents [in Milan] for three weeks to seek from here a position as an
assistant at a university. I would have found one long ago if Weber had not played
a dishonest game with me’ [E14].j: In March 1901 he sent a reprint of his first
paper to Friedrich Wilhelm Ostwald in Leipzig, along with a letter in which he
inquired ‘whether you perhaps might have use for a mathematical physicist who
is familiar with absolute measurements’ (E15|. In April he wrote to Heike
Kamerlingh Onnes asking for a position in Leiden [E16|. Perhaps he never
received replies. Certainly his applications were unsuccessful. He was discour-
aged, as we know from a letter from his father to OstwaId§: ‘My son is deeply
unhappy with his current state of unemployment. Day by day the feeling grows
in him that his career is off the track ... the awareness weighs on him that he is
a burden to us, people of small means’ [El 7]. Hermann asked Ostwald to at least
send a few words of encouragement about his son’s paper. Nine years later, Ein-
stein and Ostwald would both be in Geneva to receive honorary doctorates. The
year after that Ostwald would be the first to propose Einstein for the Nobel
prize.

* Mileva made a second try in July 1901 and failed again.

** After Weber’s death in 1912, Einstein wrote to a friend, in a way quite uncommon for him,
‘Weber’s death is good for the ETH’ [ElO].

fHe had formally applied for citizenship on October 19, 1899. On January 10, 1900, his father
made the required declaration that he had no objections to this application (F2]. On March 1 3, 1901 ,
he was declared unfit for the army (Untauglich A) because of flat feet and varicose veins.

. wenn Weber nicht ein falsches Spiel gegen mich spielte ’

§Thc letters from the Einsteins to Ostwald have been reproduced in [K2|

^See Chapter 30.

INTRODUCTORY

Finally Einstein found a temporary job. Starting May 19, 1901, he became a
substitute teacher for two months at a high school in Winterthur. He wrote to
Winteler that he had never expected to derive such pleasure from teaching. ‘After
having taught for five or six hours in the morning, I am still quite fresh and work
in the afternoon either in the library on my further education or at home on inter-
esting problems. ... I have given up the ambition to get to a university since I saw
that also under the present circumstances I maintain the strength and desire to
make scientific eflforts’ [El 8].* To Grossmann he wrote, also from Winterthur,
that he was at work on kinetic gas theory and that he was pondering the movement
of matter relative to the aether [E19].

After Winterthur, another temporary position came his way. He was appointed
for one year, to begin in September 1901, at a private school in Schaffhausen [F3).
Once again there was enough time for physics. Here is Einstein writing in Decern
ber 1901: ‘Since September 15, 1901, I am a teacher at a private school in
Schaffhausen. During the first two months of my activities at that school, I wrote
my doctoral dissertation on a topic in the kinetic theory of gases. A month ago I
handed in this thesis at the University of Zurich’** [E20]. This work was not
accepted as a thesis, however.! This setback was the last one in Einstein’s career.
It came at about the time that he left Schaffhausen for Bern, where he was to
spend the most creative years of his life.

The first initiative for the move to Bern had already been taken some time in
1900, when Marcel Grossmann had spoken to his family about Einstein’s employ-
ment difficulties. This led Marcel’s father to recommend Einstein to Friedrich
Haller, the director of the federal patent office in Bern. Einstein was deeply grate-
ful for this recommendation. ! There the matter rested until December 11, 1901,
when a vacancy at the patent office was advertised in the Schwetzensches Bundes-
blatt. Einstein at once sent a letter of application [E201. At some point he was
interviewed by Haller. Perhaps he received some assurances of a position at that
time. In any event, he resigned his Job at Schaffhausen and settled in Bern in
February 1902, before he had any appointment there. At first his means of sup-
port were a small allowance from his family and fees from tutoring in mathematics
and physics. One of his students described him as follows: ‘about five feet ten,
broad-shouldered, slightly stooped, a pale brown skin, a sensuous mouth, black
moustache, nose slightly aquiline, radiant brown eyes, a pleasant voice, speaking

•In this same letter, Einstein also reported that he had met one of the leading German physicists. I
have been unable to find out tvho that was

•*At that time, the ETH did not yet grant the PhD degree.

fl have been unable to find a response from Zurich concerning Einstein’s proposed thesis. This
kinetic theory paper was later published [E21]. Earlier in the year, Einstein had contemplated sub-
mitting an extended version of his first paper, on intermolecular forces, as a PhD thesis [El 4].

!He expressed his gratitude in a letter to Marcel Grossmann dated April 14, 1901, [E14] (not 1902,
as is stated in [Sll]).

PORTRAIT OF THE PHYSICIST AS A YOUNG MAN

French correctly but with a light accent’ [F4]. It was at this time that he met
Maurice Solovine, ‘der gute Solo,’ who came to be tutored and became a friend
for life. Einstein, Solovine, and another friend, Konrad Habicht, met regularly to
discuss philosophy, physics, and literature, from Plato to Dickens. They solemnly
constituted themselves as founders and sole members of the ‘Akademie Olympia,’
dined together, typically on sausage, cheese, fruit, and tea, and generally had a
wonderful time.*

Meanwhile, Einstein’s appointment by the Swiss federal council came through.
As of June 16, 1902, he was technical expert third class at the patent office at an
annual salary of SF 3500— on a trial basis.

Before settling in Bern, Einstein already had plans to marry a fellow student
from the ETH with whom he had often discussed science in Zurich. She was
Mileva Marie (or Marity), born in 1875 in Xitel (South Hungary), of Greek
Catholic background. Einstein’s parents were strongly opposed to the marriage;
‘perhaps they had wished to pursue other plans’ [MIO]. In 1902 there was tem-
porary friction between Einstein and his mother, who neither then nor later liked
Mileva [E23]. It was altogether a hard year for Pauline. Her husband’s series of
misfortunes had undermined his robust health. A brief and fatal heart disease
felled him. Einstein came from Bern to Milan to be with his father, who on his
death-bed finally consented to his son’s marriage. When the end was near, Her-
mann asked everyone to leave so that he could die alone. It was a moment his son
never recalled without feelings of guilt**. Hermann Einstein died on October 10,
1902, and was buried in Milan.

Albert and Mileva married on January 6, 1903. There was a small party that
evening. Afterward, when the couple arrived at their lodgings, Einstein had to
wake up the landlord. He had forgotten his keys [MIO]. Much later, Einstein
recalled the inner resistance with which he had entered the marriage [E24]. On
May 14, 1904, their son Hans Albert was born, through whom the family line
continues to this day.

Einstein did well at the patent office. He took his work seriously and often
found it interesting. I'here was always enough time and energy left for his own
physics. In 1903 and 1904 he published papers on the foundations of statistical
mechanics. On September 16, 1904, his provisional appointment was made per-
manent. Further promotion, wrote Haller, ‘should wait until he has fully mas-
tered machine technology; he studied physics’ [F5].

No one before or since has widened the horizons of physics in so short a time
as Einstein did in 1905. His work of that year will of course be discussed at length

*In his late sixties, Einstein remembered the days 'when we ran our happy “Academy,” which after
all was less childish than those respectable ones which I got to know later from close in’ [E22] The
best description of the Akademie is the one by Solovine, who records that the members also read
Spinoza, Hume, Mach, Poincare, Sophocles, Racine, and Cervantes [SI 2]

**Helcn Dukas, private communication.

INTRODUCTORY

in later chapters.* Here I note only that in March he completed a paper which
was to earn him the Nobel prize and that in April he finished an article which
finally gained him the PhD degree from the University of Zurich [E25].

On April 1, 1906, Einstein was promoted to technical expert second class with
a salary raise to SF 4500. He now knew enough technology and, writes Haller,
‘belongs among the most esteemed experts at the office’ [F6]. At the end of 1906,
he finished a fundamental paper on specific heats. He also found time to write
book reviews for the Annalen der Physik [K3]. At the end of 1907 Einstein made
the first important strides toward the general theory of relativity (see Chapter 9).

Here the sketch of the young man’s life ends. Einstein’s days in Bern are not
yet over, but a new phase is about to begin: his academic career (see further Sec-
tion 10a).

At the end of his life, Einstein wrote that the greatest thing Marcel Grossman
did for him was to recommend him to the patent office with the help of the elder
Grossman [E26]. That no doubt is true. Einstein’s funds may have been limited,
his marriage may not have been perfect. But, for the man who preferred to think
in apartness, the Bern days were the closest he would ever come to paradise on
earth.

An Addendum on Einstein Biographies

In preparing this chapter, I have striven to rely as much as possible on original
documents. The Einstein Archives in Princeton and Helen Dukas’s guidance
were, of course, of prime importance. I also derived great benefit from the Wis-
senschaftschistonsche Sammlung of the ETH Library in Zurich, where Dr. B.
Glaus gave me much help. In addition, I have made grateful use of the following
biographies.

1. Albert Einstein, Beitrag fur sein Lebensbild by Maja Einstein; in manuscript
form. Completed in Florence on February 15, 1924. The original manuscript
is in the hands of the Besso family; a copy is present in the Princeton Archives.
Cited in the references to this chapter as M.

2. Albert Einstein, a Biographical Portrait by Anton Reiser, the pen name for
Rudolf Kayser; A. and C. Boni, New York, 1930. Cited below as R. In 1931,
Einstein wrote about this book: ‘The book by Reiser is, in my opinion, the best
biography which has been written about me. It comes from the pen of a man
who knows me well personally’ [ES]. (Kayser, a connoisseur of the German
langUi^e, was for many years the chief editor of the influential Neue Rund-
schau, a Berlin monthly; he was also the author of numerous books and a
teacher. In 1924 he married Einstein’s stepdaughter Use.)

*For the doctoral thesis and Brownian motion, see Chapter 5. For special relativity, see Chapters 6
through 8. For the light-quantum hypothesis, see Chapter 19

PORTRAIT OF THE PHYSICIST AS A YOUNG MAN

3. A. Einstein, Autobiographisches, in Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist (P.
Schilpp, Ed.); Tudor, New York, 1949. Cited below as E. The closest Einstein
ever came to writing an autobiography. Indispensable.

4. C. Seelig, Albert Einstein; Europa Verlag, Zurich, 1960. Quoted below as Se.
The material is based in part on an extensive correspondence between the
author and A. Einstein, Margot Einstein, and Helen Dukas. This biography
is a much-expanded version of an earlier book by C. Seelig, Albert Einstein;
Europa Verlag, Zurich, 1954. (The English translation of this last book is not
recommended.)

5. B. Hoffmann in collaboration with H. Dukas, Albert Einstein, Creator and
Rebel; Viking, New York, 1972.

6. Albert Einstein in Bern by M. Fluckiger; Paul Haupt Verlag, Bern, 1974.
Cited below as F. Contains a number of reproductions of rare documents per-
taining to Einstein’s younger days. The text contains numerous inaccuracies.

7. Philipp Frank, Albert Einstein, sein l^ben und seme Zeit; Vieweg, Braun-
schweig, 1979. This German version is superior to the English edition, Ein-
stein, His Life and Time, Knopf, New York, 1947, since large parts of the
German edition do not appear in the English one. The German edition also
contains an introduction by Einstein in which he mentions that he encouraged
Frank to write this book.

8. H. E. Specker, Ed. Einstein und Vim; Kohlhammer, Stuttgart, 1979. Contains
details about Einstein’s ancestry, including a family tree.

9. C. Kirsten and H. J. Treder, Ed., Albert Einstein in Berlin 1913-1933; Aka-
demie Verlag, Berlin, 1979. An annotated collection of documents from the
archives of the Prussian Academy of Sciences. Splendid.

References

El. E, p. 8

El a. Pauline Einstein, letter to Jette Koch, August 1, 1886.

E2. A. Einstein, letter to H. Friedmann, March 18, 1929.

E3. E, p. 4.

E4. A. Einstein, letter to Hermann Broch, September 2, 1945.

£5 ^ Afcs Projets d' Avenir; the original is in the Staatsarchiv Kanton Aargau.

E6. , letter to Rosa Winteler, June 3, 1897.

E7. E, p. 14.

E8. A. Einstein, letter to E. F. Magnin, February 25, 1931.

E9. E,p. 16.

ElO. A. Einstein, letter to H. Zangger, summer 1912.

Ell. , letter to A. Hurwitz, September 23, 1900.

£12. , letter to A. Hurwitz, September 26, 1900.

£13. , /I^P4, 513, (1901).

£14. , letter to M. Grossman, April 14, 1901.

£15. ^ letter to W. Ostwald, March 19, 1901.

El 6. , letter to H. Kamerlingh Onnes, April 17, 1901.

El 7. H. Einstein, letter to W. Ostwald, April 13, 1901.

E18. A. Einstein, letter to J. Winteler, undated, 1901.

E19. , letter to M. Grossman, undated, 1901.

E20. , letter to the Eidgenossisches Amt fiir geistiges Eigentum, December 18,

1901; reproduced in F, p. 55.

E21. 9, 417 (1902).

E22. , letter to M. Solovine, November 25, 1948.

E23. Pauline Einstein, letter to R. Winteler, February 20, 1902.

E24. A. Einstein, letter to C. Seelig, May 5, 1952.

E25. , Erne neue Bestimmung der Molekuldimenstonen. Buchdruckerei K. J

Wyss, Bern, 1905.

E26. , in Helle Zeit, Dunkle Zeit, p 12 C. Seelig Ed. Europa Verlag, Zurich,

1956.

FI. A. Fdppl, Einjukrung in die Maxwellsche Theorie der Elektnzitdt. Teubner,
Leipzig, 1894.

F2. F, pp. 43-44.

F3. F, p. 34.

F4. F, p. 11.

F5. F, p. 67.

F6. F, p. 65.

Hi Ph. Hausel, Miinchner Merkur, March 14, 1979.

H2. E. Heis and T. J Eschweiler, Lehrbuch der Geometrie zum Gebrauch an hoheren
Lehranstalten. Du-Mont and Schauberg, Cologne, 1867
Kl, L. Kollros, Helu. Phys. Acta Suppl 4, 271 (1956).

K2. H. Kdrber, Forschungen und Fortschritte 38, 74 (1974)

K3. M. J. Klein and A. Needell, Isis 68, 601 (1977).

Ml. M,p. 12.

M2. M, pp. 9-10.

M3 M, p. 14.

M4. M, p. 15.

M5. M, pp. 11-12.

M6. M, p. 13.

M7. M, p. 16.

M8. M, p. 18.

M9. M, p. 20.

MIO. M, p. 23.

Rl. R, p. 28.

R2. R, p. 31.

R3. R, p. 24.

R4. R, p. 26.

R5. R, p. 25.

R6. R, p. 33.

R7. R, p. 54.

R8. R, p. 52.

R9. R, p. 48.

RIO. R, p. 49.

PORTRAIT OF THE PHYSICIST AS A YOUNG MAN

51. E. G. Straus, lecture given at Yeshiva University, September 18, 1979.

52. Se, p. 15.

53. E. Sanesi, Physu 18, 174 (1976).

54. Se, pp. 21-22.

55. Se, p. 48.

56. Se, p. 47.

57. Se, pp. 38-40.

S8 Se, p. 54.

S9. Se, p. 43.

510. Se, p. 415.

511. Se, p. 85.

SI 2. M. Solovine, Ed., Albert Einstein, Lettres d Maurice Solovine, introduction. Gau-
thier Villars, Paris, 1956

Tl. M. Talmey, The Relativity Theory Simplified and the Formative Years of Its
Inventor. Falcon Press, New York, 1932
T2. |T1], pp. 164-5.

LIT F Uppenborn, Ed., Die Versorgung von Stadten mit elektnschem Strom, p 63
Springer, Berlin, 1891.

STATISTICAL PHYSICS

Entropy and Probability

4a. Einstein’s Contributions at a Glance

Einstein s activities related to thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, and kinetic
theory begin with his very first paper, completed at the end of 1900, and span a
quarter of a century, during which time he wrote close to forty articles bearing in
varying degree on these subjects. The first of the vintage years was 1905, when he
developed theoretically three independent methods for finding Avogadro’s number.

In an autobiographical sketch published in 1949, Einstein’s comments on his
contributions to statistical physics are relatively brief. The main message is con-
tained in the following phrases: ‘Unacquainted with the investigations of Boltz-
mann and Gibbs which had appeared earlier and which in fact had dealt exhaus-
tively with the subject, I developed statistical mechanics and the molecular-kinetic
theory of thermodynamics based on it. My mam purpose for doing this was to
find facts which would attest to the existence of atoms of definite size’ [El]. Here
he is referring to his three papers published* in the period 1902-4, in which he
made ‘a rediscovery of all essential elements of statistical mechanics’ [Blj. At that
time, his knowledge of the writings of Ludwig Boltzmann was fragmentary and
he was not at all aware of the treatise by Josiah Willard Gibbs [Glj. In 1910,
Einstein wrote that had he known of Gibbs’s book, he would not have published
his own papers on the foundations of statistical mechanics except for a few com-
ments [E2]. The influential review on the conceptual basis of statistical mechanics
completed in that same year by his friends and admirers Paul Ehrenfest and
Tatiana Ehrenfest- Alfanasjewa refers to these Einstein articles only in passing,
in an appendix [E3]. It is true that Einstein’s papers of 1902-4 did not add much
that was new to the statistical foundations of the second law of thermodynamics.
It is also true that, as Einstein himself pointed out [E4], these papers are no pre-
requisite for the understanding of his work of 1905 on the reality of molecules.
Nevertheless, this early work was of great importance for his own further scientific
development. In particular, it contains the germ of the theory of fluctuations which
he was to apply with unmatched skill from 1905 until 1925.

It would be entirely beside the mark, however, to consider Einstein’s main con-

*In 1901, he had sent the first of these papers to Ziinch in the hope that it might be accepted as his
doctoral thesis; see Chapter 3

STATISTICAL PHYSICS

tributions to statistical physics and kinetic theory as neither more nor less than
extremely ingenious and important applications of principles discovered indepen-
dently by him but initially developed by others. Take, for example, his treatment
of Brownian motion. It bristles with new ideas: particles in suspension behave like
molecules in solution; there is a relation between diffusion and viscosity, the first
fluctuation -dissipation theorem ever noted; the mean square displacement of the
particles can be related to the diffusion coefficient. The final conclusion,* that
Avogadro’s number can essentially be determined from observations with an
ordinary microscope, never fails to cause a moment of astonishment even if one
has read the paper before and therefore knows the punch line. After 1905, Ein-
stein would occasionally mention in conversation that ‘it is puzzling that Boltz-
mann did not himself draw this most perspicuous consequence [i.e., the explana-
tion of Brownian motion], since Boltzmann had laid the foundations for the whole
subject’ [Slj. However, it is hard to imagine the embattled Boltzmann evincing
the serious yet playful spirit with which Einstein handled the problem of molec-
ular reality.

Even more profoundly novel are Einstein’s applications of statistical ideas to
quantum physics. In his first paper on this subject, the light-quantum hypothesis
is arrived at by a statistical argument. This work was completed two months
before his paper on Brownian motion. After 1905, Einstein did occasionally return
to classical statistical physics, but in those later years all his main work on statis-
tical problems was in the domain of the quantum theory. In fact, a stronger state-
ment can be made: all of Einstein’s principal contributions to the quantum theory
are statistical in origin. They include his work on specific heats, on particle- wave
duality, on the particle nature of the light-quantum, on spontaneous and induced
radiative processes, and on a new derivation of the blackbody radiation formula.
His last encounter with statistics occurred as an aside— as he pul it [S2]— late in
1924 and early in 1925, when he was already working hard on unified field the-
ory. The three papers produced at that time brought him to the very threshold of
wave mechanics.

Since Einstein’s papers on statistical physics cover so much ground, it may be
helpful to preface a more detailed discussion of their main points with a brief
chronology.

1901-2. Thermodynamics of liquid surfaces [E5] and of electrolysis [E6]. In
these papers, Einstein was looking for experimental support for a hypothesis con-
cerning molecular forces. Making an analogy with gravitation, he conjectured that
the potential between two molecules of species i and j is of the form c,Cj</>(r), where
the c’s are characteristic for the species and 0(r) is a universal function of distance.
In a further analogy with gravitation, he assumed that each Cj is of the form Ec„
where c„ is a number characteristic for the erth atom in the molecule of kind i. He
was able to relate the c’s to the specific volume and to the surface tension and its

*This reasoning will be discussed in detail in Chapter 5.

ENTROPY AND PROBABILITY

temperature derivative. Using known data, he could check his hypothesis, which,
he found, actually worked fairly well for a limited range of carbon compounds
(with molecular weights mainly of the order of 1 00) but not for lighter molecules,
such as water.

Einstein s hypothesis is, of course, incorrect. As is now well known, even in the
simplest semi phenomenological models (such as the Lennard-Jones potential),
the intermolecular forces not only have a characteristic strength constant but also
depend on the molecular size. This first paper by Einstein is of interest only in
that it shows how from the start he was groping for universal principles, in the
present case for a relation between molecular forces and gravitation. ‘It should be
noted,’ he remarked, ‘that the constants c increase in general but not always with
increasing weight; however, this increase is not linear. Therefore the question if
and how our forces are related to gravitational forces must for the time being be
kept completely open’ [ESJ. The purpose of his second paper [E6] was likewise to
obtain information on his conjectured force law. Here, no comparison data were
available. The paper concludes with an apology by Einstein for not being in a
position to contribute personally to the experimental clarification of his theoretical
ideas.

That Einstein was quite taken with the concept of a universal molecular force
is seen from a letter to Grossmann in 1901. ‘1 am certain now that my theory of
the attractive forces ... can be extended to gases . . . Then the decision about the
question of the close relation of molecular forces with the Newtonian forces acting
at a distance will come a big step nearer’ (E7]. Then follows a lyrical passage: ‘It
is a wonderful feeling to recognize the unifying features of a complex of phenom-
ena which present themselves as quite unconnected to the direct experience of the
senses.’

In December 1907, Einstein wrote to Stark: ‘I am sending you ... all my pub-
lications except for my worthless first two papers (E8]. And so we meet for the
first time a trait typical of Einstein throughout his life. He could be very enthu-
siastic about his own ideas and then, when necessary, drop them some time later,
without any pain, as being of no consequence.

I have dwelt at disproportionate length on these first two papers simply because
by doing so 1 shall have no need to return to them. Two final comments about
them: (1) one thermodynamic relation contained in the first paper did survive;*
and (2) in 1911 Einstein briefly returned one more time to the molecular theory
of liquid surface phenomena.**

*Let / be the heat capacity at constant pressure p of a liquid held in a container, w the liquid surface,
and a the surface tension Einstein derived the relation [ES]

^ = - 7-(a=»/arv

do?

This result is discussed by Schottky [S3)

**10 a short note on the Eotvds relation between surface tension, specific volume, and temperature
IE91

STATISTICAL PHYSICS

1902-4. The three studies on the foundations of statistical mechanics. The
first paper deals with the definitions of temperature and entropy for thermal equi-
librium conditions and with the equipartition theorem [ElO], the second one with
irreversibility [Ell], the third one with fluctuations and new ways to determine
the magnitude of the Boltzmann constant [El 2]. Einstein published a brief com-
ment on these papers in 1911 [E2].

March 1905. Introduction of the light-quantum hypothesis with the help of
an argument based on Boltzmann statistics [El 3]. The first correct application of
equipartition to radiation.

April 1905. Completion of the PhD thesis on a new determination of molec-
ular dimensions [E14]. A correction to this paper was published in 1911 [E15)
and a minor comment in 1920 [El 6].

1905-8. Several papers on Brownian motion. The first and most important
dates from May 1905 [E17]. A sequel in 1906 includes the discussion of rotatory
Brownian motion [E18]. A brief comment on the interpretation of mean velocity
was published in 1907 [El 9] and a semipopular account of the whole subject in
1908 [E20].

1906. Quantum theory of specific heats of solids [E21 ]. With this paper, solid
state quantum theory begins.

1907. Voltage fluctuations in a condenser as a means of measuring Boltz-
mann’s constant [E22]. Relativistic transformation of thermodynamic quantities
[E23],*

1909. Two papers containing details of the energy fluctuations of electromag-
netic radiation around thermal equilibrium and the first statement in history of
particle- wave duality, arrived at by the interpretation of these fluctuation for-
mulae. Discussion of the Brownian motion exhibited by a mirror moving uni-
formly through a radiation field [E24, E251.

1910. Statistical aspects of the motion of resonator in a radiation field [E26,
E27]; a further comment in 1915 [E28]. The theory of critical opalescence [E29].

1911. Two additional comments on the specific heat paper of 1906 |E21]: an
attempt to relate the specific heat of solids to their elastic properties [ E30] and an
attempt to refine his assumption, made earlier for reasons of simplicity, that lattice
vibrations can be treated as approximately monochromatic [E31).

1912-13. The thermodynamics of photochemical processes [E32, E331.

1914. An abortive attempt to explain anomalies in the specific heat of gases
(E34].

1916-17. Three overlapping but nonidentical papers dealing with sponta-
neous and induced radiative processes {A and B coefficients), a new derivation of
the blackbody radiation law, and the Brownian motion of a molecular gas in equi-
librium with radiation, from which the momentum properties of a light-quantum
are deduced [E35, E36, E37].

1924. A qualitative discussion of thermal conductivity in gases for the case

*This last topic is not yet ripe for historic assessment (LI).

ENTROPY AND PROBABILITY

where the mean free path of the molecules is small compared with the linear
dimensions of the container [E38]. At that time it was believed by some that the
motion of foils in a radiometer was somehow induced by radiation pressure. Ein-
stein’s paper, which complements earlier work by Knudsen, was a contribution
toward the elimination of this incorrect idea.

1924-5. Three papers on the quantum theory of a molecular gas; discovery
of the condensation phenomenon named after Einstein and also after Bose; Ein-
stein’s last application of fluctuation theory, which leads him to particle-wave
duality for matter by a route independent of the one taken earlier by de Broglie
[E39, E40, E411.

Reviews. In 1911 Einstein summarized the status of the specific heat problem
before the first Solvay conference [E42). In 1915 he wrote a semipopular review
on kinetic problems |E431.

This concludes the introductory summary of Einstein’s work on statistical phys-
ics and related subjects. I shall, of course, return in more detail to the main topics
mentioned in this chronology. Sections 4c and 4d deal with the 1902-4 papers and
with Einstein’s subsequent involvement with Boltzmann’s principle. Chapter 5,
which opens with introductory remarks on the highly complex subject of molec-
ular reality in the nineteenth century, is devoted mainly to Einstein’s doctoral
thesis. Brownian motion, and critical opalescence. All the principal papers men-
tioned above that belong to the area of quantum physics will be discussed in Chap-
ters 19 to 24.

At the beginning of this section, I remarked that Einstein devoted some but not
much attention to his contributiuns to statistical physics when, at age seventy, he
looked back on his work. At that time, he had much more to say about his rela-
tivity theories and devoted more space to his critique of quantum mechanics than
to all the work summarized above [El ]. It is an additional purpose of the foregoing
chronology to make clear that in doing so he did not fully convey the breadth of
his life’s work.

Einstein’s position regarding questions of principle in statistical mechanics is
best explained by first reviewing briefly the contributions of Maxwell and, espe-
cially, of Boltzmann. Gibbs will not enter into this review because he did not
influence Einstein and also because, as Lorentz noted in Einstein s presence, the
Einstein and Gibbs approaches are different [L2]. Einstein did not disagree.
Indeed, in responding to Lorentz’s remark, he observed, ‘[Myl point of view is
characterized by the fact that one introduces the probability of a specific state in
a phenomenological manner. In that way one has the advantage of not interposing
any particular theory, for example, any statistical mechanics’ [E44]. His critical
attitude to Boltzmann’s approach, implied by this statement, will be discussed in
Section 4d. One of the aims of this chapter is to explain what Einstein had in
mind with his phenomenological approach.

In concluding this introduction, I note that the period of Einstein’s activities

STATISTICAL PHYSICS

concerning the foundations of statistical mechanics preceded the appearance of the
first papers in which it was noted that all was not well with Boltzmann’s ergodic
hypothesis. In what follows, I shall therefore have no occasion to make reference
to ergodic theory.

4b. Maxwell and Boltzmann*

Boltzmann’s grave, in the Central Cemetery in Vienna, is marked by a monument
on which the formula

S=k\ogW (4.1)

is carved. ‘It is immaterial that Boltzmann never wrote down the equation in this
form. This was first done by Planck. . . . The constant k was also first introduced
by Planck and not by Boltzmann’ [S4). Indeed, A is a twentieth century symbol
which was used for the first time in the formula

Pi^j) =

Sirhp^ 1

txp(hp/kT) — 1

(4.2)

proposed on December 14, 1900, by Planck [PI] for the thermal equilibriunn dis-
tribution of blackbody radiation.** The quantity p(p, T)dv is the radiative energy
per unit volume in the frequency interval piov dp ai temperature T. Equation
4.1, or rather (and better)

5 = ^ In IT -f constant (4.3)

is also found for the first time in a paper by Planck, one completed a few weeks
later [P3]. Lorentz referred to k as Planck*s constant as late as 1911 [L3]. Nor
was he the only one to do so at that time [J 1 ).

The essence of Eq. 4.3, the insight that the second law of thermodynamics can
be understood only in terms of a connection between entropy and probability, is
one of the great advances of the nineteenth century.f It appears that Maxwell was

•In writing this section, M. Klein’s studies of the work of Maxwell and Boltzmann have served me
as an indispensable guide.

••Planck’s discovery will be treated in Chapter 19. An equation equivalent to Eq. 4.2 but in which
h and k do not yet occur explicitly had been proposed by Planck on the preceding October 19 (P2|.

fRecall that the period of discovery of the first law of thermodynamics (the impossibility of a per-
petuum mobile of the first kind) is approximately 1830 to 1850. Many scientists, from engineers to
physiologists, made this discovery independently (Kll. The law of conservation of energy for purely
mechanical systems is, of course, much older. The second law was discovered in 1850 (Cl ] by Rudolf
Julius Emmanuel Clausius while he was pondering the work of Sadi Carnot. In its original form
(Clausius’s principle), the second law said in essence that heat cannot go from a colder to a warmer
body without some other accompanying change. The term entropy was also introduced by Clausius,
in 1865, at which time he stated the two laws as follows: ‘The energy of the world is constant, its
entropy strives toward a maximum,’ and commented that ‘the second law of thermodynamics is much
harder for the mind to grasp than the first’ |C2].

ENTROPY AND PROBABILITY

the first to state that the second law is statistical in nature.* In a letter about his
‘demons,’ probably written early in 1868, he discussed their naming, their char-
acteristics, and their purpose:

‘1. Who gave them this name? Thompson.**

2. What were they by nature? Very small but lively beings incapable of doing
work but able to open and shut valves which move without friction or inertia.

3. What was their chief end? To show that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
was only a statistical certainty . , [M2].

Boltzmann had already begun his attempts to derive the second law when Max-
well wrote these lines, but he did not yet understand its statistical character. The
stated purpose of Boltzmann’s first paper on the subject (1866) was ‘to give a
completely general proof of the second law of the theory of heat, as well as to
discover the theorem in mechanics that corresponds to it’ [B2].f He made a fresh
start when he returned to the problem in 1871-2: ‘The problems of the mechan-
ical theory of heat are . . . problems in the theory of probability’ [B3]. His new
proof was based on the so-called kinetic method [E3, K3]. In the first of two
papers, he dealt with the equilibrium relation between entropy, heat, and tem-
perature [B4]. The sequel, published in 1872 [B3], is one of his most important
papers. It contains the Boltzmann equation. It also contains the H theorem: there
exists a quantity, later called //, defined in terms of the velocity distribution, with
the property that dH/dt < 0 so that, up to a negative multiplicative constant, H
can be identified with the entropy. Both mechanical and probabilistic arguments
arc used in the derivation of this theorem. (In that same period, Boltzmann also
did important work on the equipartition theorem and in 1876 gave the derivation
of the ‘law’ of Dulong and Petit. The discussion of equipartition and of specific
heats will be deferred to Chapter 20.)

At that time, Boltzmann still did not have it entirely straight, however. He
believed that he had shown that the second law is absolute, that H can never
increase. He made the final step as the result of his reflections^: on a remark by
Johann Joseph Loschmidt [L4] which in modern terms can be phrased as follows.
Consider a large number of particles moving according to fully specified initial
conditions and subject to the standard time-reversal invariant Newtonian laws.

’Maxwell’s views on the second law are discussed in more detail by Klein [K2].

••This is William Thomson, later Baron Kelvin of Largs. In December 1867, Maxwell had written
a letter to Peter Guthrie Tait in which he introduced 'a finite being who knows the path and veloc-
ities of all the molecules by simple inspeaion’ (Ml). Tait had shown this letter to Thomson, who
invented the name demon for Maxwell’s finite being.

fA quite similar attempt was made by Clausius in 1871 [C3]. This led to a priority argument
between Boltzmann and Clausius — to the amusement of Maxwell [K21.

:fFor the influence of Loschmidt’s ideas on Boltzmann, see especially [K3|.

STATISTICAL PHYSICS

Suppose that H decreases in tne course of time. Then for a second system, which
differs from the first one only in that the initial conditions are time-reversed, H
must increase in the course of time. Thus, the law of increase of entropy cannot
be an absolute law. Boltzmann immediately recognized the importance of this
observation (B5] and in a major paper, published in 1877 [B6], finally arrived at
the modern view: in the approach to equilibrium the increase in entropy is not the
actual but the most probable course of events. Just as Loschmidt’s remark guided
Boltzmann, so, twenty years later, did Boltzmann play a similar role for Planck,
who at that time was trying to derive the equilibrium distribution for blackbody
radiation under the assumption that the increase in entropy is an absolute law. In
the course of a polemic between these two men, Boltzmann became the first to
prove the property of time-reversal in electromagnetic theory: the Maxwell equa-
tions are invariant under the joint inversion of the directions of time and of the
magnetic field, the electric field being left unaltered [B7]. More generally, we owe
to Boltzmann the first precise statement that for a time-reversal invariant dynam-
ics, macroscopic irreversibility is due to the fact that in the overwhelming majority
of cases a physical system evolves from an initial state to a final state which is
almost never less probable.* Boltzmann was also the first to state explicitly that
this interpretation might need reconsideration in the presence of time-asymmetric
dynamic forces.**

I turn next to Boltzmann’s definition of the concept of thermodynamic proba-
bility. Actually, one finds two such definitions in his writings. The first one dates
from 1868 (B9]: Consider a system of N structureless particles with fixed total
energy. The evolution in time of this system can be represented as an orbit on a
surface of constant energy in the 6A^-dimensional phase space (later called the F
space [£3]). To a state S,(i = 1,2, . . . ) of the system corresponds a point on the
orbit. The state S, shall be specified up to a small latitude, and thus the corre-
sponding point is specified up to a small neighborhood. Observe the system for a
long time t during which it is in S, for a period r,. Then r./r (in the limit r —
oo) is defined to be the probability of the system being in the state S,. This we
shall call Boltzmann’s first definition of probability.

I alluded earlier to Einstein’s critical attitude toward some of Boltzmann’s ideas.
That has nothing to do with the first definition of probability. In fact, that very
definition was Einstein’s own favorite one. He independently reintroduced it him-

*Scc (P41 for a quantum mechanical version of the H theorem

**Sec (B8). The most important initial condition in our physical world is the selection of the Fried-
mann universe — in which, it seems, we live — as the one realized solution of the time-reversal invar-
iant gravitational equations. It has been speculated that this particular choice of actualized universe
is one indication of the incompleteness of our present physical laws, that the actual physical laws are
not all time-symmetric, that the time-reversal violation observed in the neutral K-parlicle system is
only a first manifestation of this asymmetry, and that the conventional view on the statistical arrow
of time may indeed need revision. For a discussion of all these topics, see the review by Penrose 1 P5].

ENTROPY AND PROBABILITY

self in 1903 [Ell], evidently unaware of Boltzmann’s paper of 1868. (Lorentz
later called this definition the time ensemble of Einstein [L3], perhaps not the
most felicitous of names.) Rather, Einstein had reservations about the second def-
inition of probability, which Boltzmann gave in the paper of 1877 [B6]. In that
paper, Boltzmann introduced for the first time a new tool, the so-called statistical
method, in which there is no need to deal explicitly with collision mechanisms and
collision frequencies (as there is in the kinetic method). His new reasoning only
holds close to equilibrium [BlOj. He applied the method only to an ideal gas
[B1 Ij. For that case, he not only gave his second definition of probability but also
showed how that probability can be computed explicitly by means of counting
‘complexions.’

In preparation for some comments on Einstein’s objections (Section 4d) as well
as for a later discussion of the differences between classical and quantum statistics
(Chapter 23), it is necessary to recall some elementary facts about this counting
procedure.*

Suppose I show someone two identical balls lying on a table and then ask this
person to close his eyes and a few moments later to open them again. I then ask
whether or not I have meanwhile switched the two balls around. He cannot tell,
since the balls are identical. Yet I know the answer. If I have switched the balls,
then I have been able to follow the continuous motion which brought the balls
from the initial to the final configuration. This simple example illustrates Boltz-
mann’s first axiom of classical mechanics, which says, in essence, that identical
particles which cannot come infinitely close to each other can be distinguished by
their initial conditions and by the continuity of their motion. This assumption,
Boltzmann stressed, ‘gives us the sole possibility of recognizing the same material
point at different times’ [B13]. As Erwin Schroedinger emphasized, ‘Nobody
before Boltzmann held it necessary to define what one means by [the term] the
same material point’ [S5]. Thus we may speak classically of a gas with energy E
consisting of N identical, distinguishable molecules.

Consider next (following Boltzmann) the specific case of an ideal gas model in
which the energies of the individual particles can take on only discrete values
€,,€ 2 ,. ... Let there be n, particles with energy c, so that

iV = ^ n, , = XI

Since the gas is ideal, the particles are uncorrelated and therefore have no a prion
preference for any particular region in one-particle phase space (^ space), i.e.,
they are statistically independent. Moreover, they are distinguishable in the sense

*Sec Lorentz (L3] for the equivalence of this method with the microcanonical ensemble of Gibbs.
Also, the notion of ensemble has its roots in Boltzmann’s work [B12], as was stressed by Gibbs in
the preface of his book on statistical mechanics (Gl).

STATISTICAL PHYSICS

just described. Therefore, the number of microstates (or complexions, as Boltz-
mann called them) corresponding to the partition Eq. 4.4 is given by

n«.!

(4.5)

Boltzmann took to be proportional to the probability of the distribution speci-
fied by (n„n 2 ) • • • )• This will be called his second definition of probability.

For later purposes I need to mention a further development, one not due to
Boltzmann. The number of microstates w is now called a fine-grained probability.
For the purpose of analyzing general macroscopic properties of systems, it is very
important to use a contracted description, which leads to the so-called coarse-
grained probability,* a concept that goes back to Gibbs. The procedure is as fol-
lows. Divide space into cells . . . such that a particle in has the mean
mergy E^. Partition the N particles such that there are particles in

(4.6)

(4.7)

The set defines a coarse-grained state. For the special case of the ideal

gas model, it follows from Eq. 4.5 that the volume IT in F space corresponding
to the partition of Eqs. 4.6 and 4.7 is given by

(4.8)

where W is the so-called coarse-grained probability. The state of equilibrium cor-
responds to the maximum of W considered as a function of and subject
to the constraints imposed by Eqs. 4.6 and 4.7. Thus the Maxwell -Boltzmann
listribution follows** from the extremal conditions

^ SN.dnw, - \nK - X + = 0 (4.9)

The entropy in equilibrium, is given by (see Eq. 4.3)

- k lnlT„»„ + constant (4.10)

and = kT follows from dS^/dE = T~\

*The names fine-grained and coarse-grained density (fcinc und grobe Dichtc) were introduced by
he Ehrenfests |E45).

^*For the classical ideal gas, one can get the Maxwell- Boltzmann distribution directly from Eqs.
1.4 and 4.3; that is Just what Boltzmann himself did.

ENTROPY AND PROBABILITY 65

Einstein’s precursors have now been sufficiently introduced. I conclude this sec-
tion with three final comments.

The first definition of probability, in terms of time spent, is the natural one,
directly linked to observation. For example, the most probable state is the state in
which the system persists for the longest time. The second definition (either for
w or for W) is not directly linked to observation; it is more like a declaration. It
has the advantage, however, that one can more readily compute with it. Logic
demands, of course, that these two definitions be equivalent, that ‘time spent’ be
proportional to ‘volume in V space.’ This is the profound and not yet fully solved
problem of ergodic theory.* Boltzmann was well aware of the need to show this
equivalence. Einstein’s physical intuition made him comfortable with the first but
not with the second definition.

Second, why did Boltzmann himself not introduce the symbol k?** After all,
his 1877 paper [B6] contains a section entitled ‘The Relation of the Entropy to
the Quantity Which I Have Called Partition Probability,’ that quantity being
essentially In W. Moreover, in that section he noted that In IT ‘is identical with the
entropy up to a constant factor and an additive constant.’ He was also quite
familiar with Eq. 4.9, with its two Lagrange multipliers [B14]. I can imagine that
he did not write down Eq. 4.3 because he was more concerned with understanding
the second law of thermodynamics than with the applications of an equation such
as Eq. 4.3 to practical calculations. I hope that this question will be discussed
some day by someone more at home with Boltzmann’s work than I am.

Finally, Eq. 4.3 is evidently more general than Eq. 4.10. Boltzmann was aware
of this: ‘[In IT) also has a meaning for an irreversible bodyf and also steadily
increases during [such a process]’ [B6|. The first one to make use of Eq. 4.3 in its
broader sense was Einstein. It was also Einstein who, in 1905, in his paper on the
light-quantum hypothesis (El 3), gave that equation its only fitting name: Boltz-
mann’s principle.

4c. Preludes to 1905

Boltzmann’s qualities as an outstanding lecturer are not reflected in his scientific
papers, which are sometimes unduly long, occasionally obscure, and often dense.
Their main conclusions are sometimes tucked away among lengthy calculations.
Also (and especially in regard to the theoretical interpretation of the second law),
Boltzmann would change his pK)int of view from one paper to the next without

*For introductions to this problem, sec, c.g., [Ul] and (VIJ.

**As to what might have been, in 1860 Maxwell could have been the first to introduce k when he
derived his velocity distribution, in which the Boltzmann factor makes its first appearance. Maxwell
wrote this factor as cxp(-t^V«^), where = velocity, showed that a' is proportional to the average
of and knew full well that this average is proportional to T.

f Obviously, he must have meant process instead of body.

STATISTICAL PHYSICS

advance warning to the reader.* Maxwell said of his writings; ‘By the study of
Boltzmann I have been unable to understand him. He could not understand me
on account of my shortness, and his length was and is an equal stumbling block
to me’ (M3]. Einstein once said to a student of his: ‘Boltzmann’s work is not easy
to read. There are great physicists who have not understood it’ [S6].** That state-
ment was made around 1910, when he was a professor at the University of Zurich.
By then he must have read Boltzmann’s major memoir of 1877 on the statistical
mechanical derivation of the second law, since he referred to that paper (for the
first time!) in 1909 [E47]. However, it is very doubtful whether in the years from
1901 to 1904, when he did his own work on this subject, Einstein knew either this
paper or the one of 1868, in which Boltzmann had introduced his first definition
of probability.

It must have been difficult for Einstein to get hold of scientific journals. Recall
that the first of his three papers on the foundations of statistical mechanics was
completed while he was still a teacher at Schaffhausen.f His move to Bern does
not seem to have improved his access to the literature very much [E48|. It is also
unclear whether he had read Maxwell’s papers on kinetic theory at that time.
Certainly, he did not know English then, since he did not start to study that lan-
guage until about 1909 [S7j and his knowledge of it was still rudimentary when
he came to the United States. t

Yet Einstein was acquainted with some of Maxwell’s and Boltzmann’s achieve-
ments. As he put it in his first paper on statistical physics [ElOj: ‘Maxwell’s and
Boltzmann’s theories have already come close to the goal’ of deriving the laws of
thermal equilibrium and the second law from the equations of mechanics and the
theory of probability. However, he remarked, this goal had not yet been achieved
and the purpose of his own paper was ‘to fill the gap’ left by these men. From the
single reference in Einstein’s paper, it is clear how much he could have learned
about their work. This reference is to Boltzmann’s lectures on gas theory (BIS),
a two-volume work which contains much original research and which was cer-
tainly not intended by Boltzmann to be a synopsis of his earlier work. The book
is largely based on the kinetic method (the Boltzmann equation); by comparison,
the comments on the statistical method are quite brief. The counting formula of
complexions is mentioned [B6]; however, said Boltzmann, ‘I must content myself
to indicate [this method] only in passing,’ and he then concluded this topic with
a reference to his 1877 paper. Also, it seems possible to me that Einstein knew of

*Scc especially Klein’s memoir (K3] for a discussion of Boltzmann’s style.

**The encyclopedia article by the Ehrenfests contains several such qualifying phrases as ‘The aim
of the . . . investigations by Boltzmann seems to be . ’ [£46].

fSee Chapter 3.

^Helen Dukas, private communication. However, it may be that Einstein did see one of the German
translations of Maxwell’s Theory of Heat, dating from the 1 870s.

ENTROPY AND PROBABILITY

Maxwell’s work on kinetic theory only to the extent that it was discussed by Boltz-
mann in those same volumes. Thus Einstein did not know the true gaps in the
arguments of Maxwell and, especially, of Boltzmann; nor did he accidentally fill
them. The reading of Einstein’s paper [ElO] is not facilitated by the absence of
an explicit statement as to what, in his opinion, the gaps actually were. This paper
is devoted exclusively to thermal equilibrium. The statistical interpretation of tem-
perature, entropy, and the equipartition theorem are discussed. The tool used is
essentially (in modern terms) the canonical ensemble. The paper is competent and
neither very interesting nor, by Einstein’s own admission [E2], very well written.

Einstein believed that in his next paper, completed in 1903 [Ell], he gave a
proof of the second law for irreversible processes. At this stage, he of course needed
some definition for the thermodynamic probability IT, and it is here that he inde-
pendently introduced Boltzmann’s first definition in terms of the time spent in the
appropriate interval in T space. His proof is logically correct but rests on an erro-
neous assumption: ‘We will have to assume that more probable distributions will
always follow less probable ones, that is, that W always [my italics] increases until
the distribution becomes constant and IT has reached a maximum’ [E49]. Three
days after he sent this paper to the Annalen der Physik, he wrote to Besso, ‘Now
[this work] is completely clear and simple so that I am completely satisfied with
it’ [E50]. He had been studying Boltzmann’s book since 1901 [E51]. The book
does refer to the Loschmidt objection, but, in typical Boltzmann fashion, in a
somewhat lucked-away place [B16] Einstein must have missed it; at any rate, it
is obvious that in 1903 he was unaware of the main subtlety in the proof of the
second law: the overwhelming probability, rather than the certainty, of entropy
increase.

It was not until 1910 that, for the first time, Einstein’s ‘derivation’ was criticized
in the literature. At that time, Paul Hertz pointed out that ‘if one assumes, as
Einstein did, that more probable distributions follow less probable ones, then one
introduces thereby a special assumption which is not evident and which is thor-
oughly in need of proof’ [HI ]. This is a remarkable comment. Hertz does not say,
‘Your assumption is wrong.’ Rather, he asks for its proof. Here we have but one
example of the fact that, at the end of the first decade of the twentieth century,
Boltzmann’s ideas had not yet been assimilated by many of those who were active
at the frontiers of statistical physics. A larger audience acquired some degree of
familiarity with Boltzmann’s work only after its exegesis by the Ehrenfests, pub-
lished in 1911 [E3].

Einstein’s reply to Hertz, also written in 1910 [E2] is remarkable as well. He
agrees with Hertz’s objection and adds, ‘Already then [i.e., in 1903] my derivation
did not satisfy me, so that shortly thereafter I gave a second derivation.’ The latter
is contained in the only paper Einstein completed in 1904 [El 2].* It is indeed a

*For other discussions of Einstein’s 1902-4 papers, see [K4] and (K5]

STATISTICAL PHYSICS

different derivation, in that use is made of the canonical ensemble, yet it contains
once again the assumption Hertz had criticized.

It is interesting but not all that surprising that in 1903 and 1904 Einstein, in
his isolation, had missed the point about time reversal. After all, the great Boltz-
mann had done the same thirty years earlier. However, the exchange between
Einstein and Hertz took place in 1910, when Einstein was a professor at Zurich
(and taught the kinetic theory of heat during the summer semester of that year
[S8]). By that time, he had read Boltzmann's work of 1877 (as mentioned earlier),
in which it was stated that the entropy does not always, but rather almost always,
increase. A month before replying to Hertz, he had phrased the second law quite
properly in another paper.* One can only conclude that Einstein did not pay much
attention when he replied to Hertz.

As a postscript to the issue of the second law, it is fitting to recall the first
personal exchange between Einstein and Ehrenfest, which took place in Prague
in February 1912. The Einsteins had come to the train to meet the Ehrenfests.
After the first greetings, ‘their conversation turned at once to physics, as they
plunged into a discussion of the ergodic hypothesis’ (K6].

What was the harvest of Einstein’s scientific efforts up to this point? Five
papers. The first two, dealing with his quest for a universal molecular force, are
justly forgotten.** One main ambition of the next three, to establish a dynamic
basis for the thermodynamic laws, did not entirely come to fulfillment either.
Nothing indicates Einstein’s flowering in 1905, which begins with his very next
paper. Nothing yet. However, there is one aspect (not yet mentioned) of his brief
1904 paper which does give the first intimations of things to come. In the years
1902 to 1904, Einstein may not have grasped the awesome problems — still a sub-
ject of active research — which have to be coped with in giving the second law a
foundation which stands the tests of requisite mathematical rigor. Yet these early
struggles of his played an important role in his development. They led him to ask,
in 1904, What is the meaning of the Boltzmann constant? How can this constant
be measured? His pursuit of these questions led to lasting contributions to statis-
tical physics and to his most important discovery in quantum theory.

In the opening paragraphs of Einstein’s paper of 1904 [El 2], reference is made
to Eq. 4.3: ‘An expression for the entropy of a system . . . which was found by
Boltzmann for ideal gases and assumed by Planck in his theory of radiation. . . .’
Here, for the first time, Planck appears in Einstein’s writings, and we also catch
a first brief glimpse of Einstein’s subsequent concern with the quantum theory in

•‘The irrevcrsibilily of physical phenomena is only apparent ... (a] system probably [my italics]
goes to states of greater probability when it happens to be in a state of relatively small probability’
(E29).

••See Section 4a.

ENTROPY AND PROBABILITY

the context of statistical considerations. It seems that he had already been brooding
for some time about the mysterious formula Eq. 4.2. Much later he wrote,
‘Already soon after 1900, i.e., shortly after Planck’s trailblazing work, it became
clear to me that neither mechanics nor thermodynamics could (except in limiting
cases) claim exact validity’ [E52].

His statement that thermodynamics is not exact refers, of course, to the phe-
nomena of fluctuations. Einstein turned to fluctuations for the first time in 1904,
when he considered a system with variable energy E in thermal equilibrium with
a very large second system at temperature T. The equilibrium energy ( £") of the
first system is given by

r 00

Ee-'‘^u){E)dE

{E}=^ ^ = ^ (4.11)

J e-‘‘^o,(E)dE

where <*>(£) is the density of states with energy E. In 1904 Einstein deduced a
formula for the mean square energy fluctuation

(e^> ^ ((£ - {Em = {E^} - {Ey (4.12)

of the first system. Differentiating Eq. 4.1 1 with respect to /J, he obtained

d{E) d{E)

dH dT

(4.13)

The quantity (e^) (Einstein noted) is a measure for the thermal stability of the
system. The larger the fluctuations, the smaller the system’s degree of stability.
‘Thus the absolute constant* |Al determines the thermal stability of the system.
[Equation 4.13] is of interest since it does not contain any quantities which remind
one of the assumptions on which the theory is based [E12].

Next, Einstein introduced a criterion for fluctuations to be large:

(4.14)

This relation is not satisfied by a classical ideal gas under normal condttions, since
then (£> = nkT/2 (n is the number of particles) so that | = 0(n '), indepen-
dent of the volume. He went on to note that | can be of order unity only for one
kind of system: blackbody radiation. In that case, (E) = aVT , by the Stefan-
Boltzmann law ( V is volume, a is a constant), and hence { = 4k/aVT . The
temperature T is proportional to the inverse of X,„„, the wavelength at which the
spearal distribution reaches its maximum. He therefore concluded that volume
dependence is important: for fixed T, { can become large if XL/ V is large, i.e..

* Einstein used a symbol other than k.

STATISTICAL PHYSICS

if V is small.* Thus he believed that radiation is ‘the only kind of physical system
... of which we can suspect that it exhibits an energy fluctuation.’

This subject deserves two comments. First, the conclusion is incorrect. Consider
the radiation to be composed of n modes. Then (E) = aVT^ = nkT, so that
again f = 0(n~’). In the classical theory (which, of course, Einstein was using in
1904), fluctuations are therefore not all that difTerent for radiation and for an
ideal gas. Second, the reasoning was most important for Einstein’s work in 1905,
since it drew his attention to the volume dependence of thermodynamic quantities,
a dependence which played a crucial role in his formulation of the light-quantum
hypothesis, which appeared in his very next paper.

Nevertheless, in 1904 Einstein had already taken a bold new step (of which he
was aware): he had applied statistical reasonings to radiation.** In 1905 he was
to do this again. In 1909, Eq. 4.13 would again be his starting point, and it would
lead him to the realization of the particle-wave duality of electromagnetic radia-
tion. In 1925, a formula closely related to Eq. 4.13 would make it clear to him
that a similar duality has to exist for matter. These topics will be discussed in
detail in Part VI of this book. For now, two last comments on Eq. 4.13. When
Einstein first derived it, he did not know that Gibbs had done so before him [G2].
And it is his most important and only memorable result prior to 1905.

In May 1905, Einstein was again busy with fluctuations, though in a dilferent
style, when he did his work on Brownian motion, to be discussed in Chapter 5.
The remainder of the present chapter is devoted to a discussion of Einstein’s gen-
eral views on statistical physics, in 1905 and in the years following.

4d. Einstein and Boltzmann’s Principle

I have already stressed that all of Einstein’s main contributions to the quantum
theory are statistical in origin. Correspondingly, most of his more important com-
ments on the principles of statistical mechanics are found in his papers on quan-
tum physics. His light-quantum paper of 1905 [El 3) is a prime example. Two-
and-a-half of its seventeen pages deal with the photoelectric effect — nine with sta-
tistical and thermodynamic questions. This paper, in which the term Boltzmann 's
principle appears in the literature for the first time, contains a critique of Boltz-
mann’s statistical method.

During the years 1905 to 1920, Einstein stated more than once his displeasure
with the handling of probability by others. In 1905 he wrote, The word proba-
bility is used in a sense that does not conform to its definition as given in the theory
of probability. In particular, “cases of equal probability” are often hypothetically
defined in instances where the theoretical pictures used are sufficiently definite to

•For { ■ 1, 0.4/7' and » 0.3/7’. Einstein found this near-coincidence pleasing.

••Rayleigh had done so before him (see Section 19b), but I do not believe that Einstein knew that
in 1904.

ENTROPY AND PROBABILITY

give a deduction rather than a hypothetical assertion’ [El 3]. Since Einstein had
by then already reinvented Boltzmann’s first definition, it appears safe to assume
that he was referring to the counting of complexions. Not only did he regard that
definition as artificial. More than that, he believed that one could dispense with
such countings altogether: ‘In this way, [1] hope to eliminate a logical difficulty
which still hampers the implementation of Boltzmann’s principle’ [El 3]. In order
to illustrate what he had in mind, he gave a new derivation of a well-known for-
mula for the change of entropy S of an ideal gas when, at constant temperature
T, the volume changes reversibly from Vq to V:

S{VJ-)- S{V,,T) = ^\u(^y^ (4.15)

where n is the number of molecules in the gas, R is the gas constant, and N is
Avogadro’s number. As we shall see later, this equation played a crucial role in
Einstein’s discovery of the light-quantum. (To avoid any confusion, I remind the
reader that this relation has nothing to do with any subtleties of statistical mechan-
ics, since it is a consequence of the second law of thermodynamics for reversible
processes and of the ideal gas law.*) Einstein derived Eq. 4.15 by the following
reasoning. Boltzmann’s principle (Eq. 4.3), which he wrote in the form

6’ = — In IT -h constant (4.17)

(it took until 1909 before Einstein would write k instead R/ N) implies that a

reversible change from a state ‘a’ to a state ‘b’ satisfies

9 ^

(4.18)

Let the system consist of subsystems 1,2,.. , which do not interact and therefore
are statistically independent. Then

*For an infinitesimal reversible change, the second law can be written {p — pressure)

TdS = c^dT-\- \{dV/dV) + p\dV (4 16)

where Cy, the specific heat at constant volume. S, and V, the internal energy, all are in general
functions of V and T From

d{dS/dV) ^ d{dS/dT)
dT dV

and from Eq. 4.16 it follows that

dp ip T dU/dV) ^
dT T

For a classical ideal gas, this last relation reduces to dU/dV — 0 since in this case NpV = nRT
In turn, d/7/a ^ 0 implies that Cy is a function of T only. (Actually, for an ideal gas, Cy does not

depend on T either, but we do not need that here ) Hence TdS{V,T) = c,{T)dT -b nRTdV/NV.
For a finite reversible change, this yields Eq. 4.15 by integration with respect to the volume.

STATISTICAL PHYSICS

IV =

^ ^ N W\ '

(4.19)

For the case of an ideal gas, the subsystems may be taken to be the individual
molecules. Let the gas in the states a and b have volume and temperature ( V, T)
and (VoyT), respectively. Einstein next unveils his own definition of probability:
Tor this probability [W^/W^], which is a “statistical probability,” one obviously
[my italics] finds the value

(4.20)

Equations 4.17 and 4.20 again give Eq. 4.15.

Equation 4.20 can of course also be derived from Boltzmann’s formula Eq. 4.8,
since each factor can be chosen proportional to V (for all A). Therefore Eq.
4.8 can be written W = limes a complexion-counting factor which is the
same for states a and b. Einstein was therefore quite right in saying that Eq. 4.15
(and, therefore, the ideal gas law which follows from Eqs. 4.15 and 4.16) can be
derived without counting complexions, i shall show in a separate paper [he
announced] that, in considerations about thermal properties, the so-called statis-
tical probability is completely adequate’ [EH]. This statement was too optimistic.
Equation 4.8 yields much stronger results than Eq. 4.15. No physicist will deny
that the probability for finding n statistically independent particles in the subvol-
ume V of Vq is ‘obviously’ equal to (F/Fq)”. The counting of complexions gives
more information, however, to wit, the Maxwell -Boltzmann distribution. No
wonder that the promised paper never appeared.

Einstein did not cease criticizing the notion of complexion, however. Here he
is in 1910: ‘Usually W is put equal to the number of complexions. ... In order
to calculate W, one needs a complete (molecular-mechanical) theory of the system
under consideration. Therefore it is dubious whether the Boltzmann principle has
any meaning without a complete molecular-mechanical theory or some other the-
ory which describes the elementary processes. [Eq. 4.3] seems without content,
from a phenomenological point of view, without giving in addition such an FAe-
mentartheone" [E29].

My best understanding of this statement is that, in 1910, it was not clear to him
how the complexion method was to be extended from an ideal to a real gas. It is
true that there are no simple and explicit counting formulas like Eqs. 4.5 and 4.8
if intermolecular forces are present. However, as a matter of principle the case of
a real gas can be dealt with by using Gibbs’s coarse-grained microcanonical
ensemble, a procedure with which Einstein apparently was not yet familiar.

After 1910, critical remarks on the statistical method are no longer found in
Einstein’s papers. His subsequent views on this subject are best illustrated by his
comments on Boltzmann and Gibbs in later years. Of Boltzmann he wrote in

ENTROPY AND PROBABILITY

1915: ‘His discussion [of the second law] is rather lengthy and subtle. But the
effort of thinking [about it] is richly rewarded by the importance and the beauty
of the subject’ [E43]. Of Gibbs he wrote in 1918: ‘[His] book is ... a masterpiece,
even though it is hard to read and the main points are found between the lines’
[E54]. A year before his death, Einstein paid Gibbs the highest compliment. When
asked who were the greatest men, the most powerful thinkers he had known, he
replied, ‘Lorentz,’ and added, ‘I never met Willard Gibbs; perhaps, had I done so,
I might have placed him beside Lorentz’ [Dl].

At the end of Section 4a, I mentioned that Einstein preferred to think of prob-
ability in a phenomenological way, without recourse to statistical mechanics. The
final item of this chapter is an explanation of what he meant by that. To begin
with, it needs to be stressed that Boltzmann’s principle was as sacred to Einstein
as the law of conservation of energy [E54]. However, his misgivings about the
way others dealt with the probability concept led him to a different way, uniquely
his own, of looking at the relation between S and W. His proposal was not to
reason from the microscopic to the macroscopic but rather to turn this reasoning
around. That is to say, where Boltzmann made an Ansatz about probability in
order to arrive at an expression for the entropy, Einstein suggested the use of
phenomenological information about entropy in order to deduce what the proba-
bility had to be.

In order to illustrate this kind of reasoning, which he used to great advantage,
I shall give one example which, typically, is found in one of his important papers
on quantum physics. It concerns the fluctuation equation 4.13, which had been
derived independently by Gibbs and by Einstein, using in essence the same
method. In 1909, Einstein gave a new derivation, this one all his own [E24]. Con-
sider a large system with volume V in equilibrium at temperature 7. Divide V
into a small subvolume Vq and a remaining volume K„ where V — Vq -h K,, Vq
« V,. The fixed total energy is likewise divided, E = E,. Assume* that

the entropy is also additive:

S-= So A- S, (4-21)

Suppose that E^, E, deviate by amounts Aiso, AT,', from their respective equilib-
rium values. Then

(A£o)^

(^E,Y + • • • (4.22)

A5 =

dEo

^Eq +

dS,

dE,

A£. + 2

dEl

+ 2

This assumption was briefly challenged at a later time, see Section 21

STATISTICAL PHYSICS

where the expressions in brackets refer to equilibrium values. The first-order
terms cancel since A^o = — A^, (energy conservation) and [d.9o/d£ol = [<5^91/
d£,] (equilibrium). Furthermore, [d^So/dEl] = —XIcqT^ and [d^SJdE]] =
— 1/c, where CQ,c^ are the respective heat capacities at constant volume and
c, )?> Co since F, > Vq. Thus Eq. 4.22 becomes

A5 = A5„ = - (4.23)

LCqI

Next Einstein applied the relation 5'o = ^ In Wq to the subsystem and reinter-
preted this equation to mean that Wq is the probability for the subsystem to have
the entropy Sq (at a given time). Hence,

Wq = (4.24)

where Wq is the equilibrium value of Wq. Equations 4.22 and 4.24 show that Wq
is Gaussian in A£’o. Denote (as before) the mean square deviation of this distri-
bution by (€^). Then {e^} = ^CqT^, which is again Eq. 4.13.

As we now know, although it was not at once clear then, in the early part of
the twentieth century, physicists concerned with the foundations of statistical
mechanics were simultaneously faced with two tasks. Up until 1913, the days of
the Bohr atom, all evidence for quantum phenomena came either from blackbody
radiation or from specific heats. In either case, statistical considerations play a key
role. Thus the struggle for a better understanding of the principles of classical
statistical mechanics was accompanied by the slowly growing realization that
quantum effects demand a new mechanics and, therefore, a new statistical
mechanics. The difficulties encountered in separating the two questions are seen
nowhere better than in a comment Einstein made in 1909. Once again complain-
ing about the complexions, he observed, ‘Neither Herr Boltzmann nor Herr
Planck has given a definition of W' [E24]. Boltzmann, the classical physicist, was
gone when these words were written. Planck, the first quantum physicist, had
ushered in theoretical physics of the twentieth century with a new counting of
complexions which had absolutely no logical foundation whatsoever — but which
gave him the answer he was looking for.* Neither Einstein, deeply respectful and
at the same time critical of both men, nor anyone else in 1909 could have foreseen
how odd it would appear, late in the twentieth century, to see the efforts of Boltz-
mann and Planck lumped together in one phrase.

In summary, Einstein’s work on statistical mechanics prior to 1905 is memo-
rable first because of his derivation of the energy fluctuation formula and second
because of his interest in the volume dependence of thermodynamic quantities.

•Planck’s counting is discussed in Section t9a.

ENTROPY AND PROBABILITY

which became so important in his discovery of the light-quantum. He reinvented
Boltzmann’s first definition of probability in terms of ‘time spent.’ His critical
position in regard to Boltzmann’s second definition may have led him to replace
the ‘Boltzmann logic,’ W-^S, by the ‘Einstein logic,’ S ^ W. Out of his concern
with the foundations of statistical mechanics grew his vastly more important
applications to the theoretical determination of the Boltzmann constant. These
applications are the main topic of the next chapter, where we meet Einstein in the
year of his emergence, 1905. One of the reasons for his explosive creativity in that
year may well be the liberation he experienced in moving away from the highly
mathematical foundation questions which did not quite suit his scientific
temperament.

References

B1 M Born in Albert Einstein Philosopher- Scientist (P. Schilpp, Ed.), p. 46. Tudor,
New York, 1949.

B2. L Boltzmann, Wiener Ber. 53, 195 (1866) Reprinted in Wissenschaftliche
Abhandlungen von Ludivig Boltzmann (F Hasendhrl, Ed.), Vol. 1, p. 9. Chelsea,
New York, 1968. (The.se collected works are referred to below as WA.)

B3 , Wiener Ber. 66, 275 (1872), WA, Vol 1, p. 316.

B4 , Wiener Ber. 63, 712 (1871), WA, Vol. 1, p 288.

B5. , Wiener Ber 75,62 (1877), 14'^, Vol. 2, p 112 (esp Sec 2).

B6 , Wiener Ber. 76, 373 (1877); QA, Vol 2, p. 164.

B7 , PAW, 1897, p 660, 14M, Vol 3, p 615

B8. , WA, Vol 2, p. 118, footnote 2

B9. , Wiener Ber 58, 517 (1868), WA, Vol 1, p. 49 and Sec. III. See also L.

Boltzmann, Nature 51, 413 (1895); WA, Vol .3, p 535.

BIO , WA, Vol. 2, p 218.

Bll , WA,\o\ 2, pp. 166, 223.

B12. , Wiener Ber. 63, 679 (1871), WA, Vol. 1, pp. 259, (esp. p. 277), Crelies

J. 100, 201 (1887), WA, Vol 3, p. 258

B13. , Vorlesungen ttber die Principe der Mechamk, Vol. 1, p. 9. Barth,

Leipzig, 1897 Reprinted by Wissenschaftliche Buchges, Darmstadt, 1974.

B14. , Wiener Ber. 72, 427 (1875); WA, Vol. 2, p. 1, Eq. 13

B15. , Vorlesungen liber Gastheorie. Barth, Leipzig, 1896, 1898. Translated as

Lectures on Gas Theory (S. G. Brush, Tran.). University of California Press,
Berkeley, 1964

B16. , [B15], Vol. l,Sec. 6.

Cl. R. Clausius, AdP 79, 368, 500 (1850).

C2. , AdP 125, 353 (1865), esp. p. 400.

C3. , /Ic/P 142, 433 (1871).

Dl. V. A. Douglas, J. Roy. Astr. Soc. Can. 50, 99 (1956).

El. A. Einstein, [BIJ, p. 46.

E2. , AdPU, 175(1911).

E3. P. and T. Ehrenfest, Enz. d. Math. Wiss., Vol. 4, Part 2, Sec. 28. Teubner,

STATISTICAL PHYSICS

Leipzig, 1911. Translated as The Conceptual Foundations of the Statistical
Approach in Mechanics (M. J. Moravcsik, Tran.). Cornell University Press, Ith-
aca, N.Y., 1959.

E4. A. Einstein, AdP 17, 541 (1905), footnote on p. 551.

E5. , 4, 513(1901).

E6. , .46/^8, 798 (1902).

E7. , letter to M. Grossmann, April 14, 1901.

E8. , letter to J. Stark, December 7, 1907. Reprinted in A. Hermann, Sudhoffs

Archiv. 50, 267 (1966).

E9. , .46/^34,165 (1911).

ElO. , .4</P9, 417 (1902).

Ell. , AdPn, 170 (1903).

E12. , .46/P 14, 354 (1904).

E13. , .46/P 17, 132 (1905).

E14. , Erne neue Bestimmung der Molekuldimensionen. K. J. Wyss, Bern, 1905.

Apart from a short addendum identical with AdP 19, 289 (1906).

E15. , AdP'iA, 591 (1911).

E16. , Kolloidzeitschr 27 y 137 (1920).

E17. , .46/P 17, 549 (1905).

E18. , AdP X% 311 (1906).

E19. , Z. Elektrochem. 13, 41 (1907).

E20. , Z. Elektrochem. 14, 235 (1908).

E21. , AdP22y 180, 800 (1907).

E22. , AdP 22y 569 (mi).

E23. , Jahrb. Rad. Elektr. 4, 411 (1907), Secs. 15, 16.

E24. , Phys. Zeitschr. 10, 185 (1909).

E25. , Phys. Zeitschr. 10, 817 (1909).

E26. and L. Hopf, AdP^y 1096 (1910).

E27. and , AdP33y 1105 (1910).

E28. , /I6/P47, 879 (1915).

E29. , AdP33y 1275 (1910).

E30. , AdP3^y 170, 590(1911).

E31. , .46/^35,679 (1911).

E32. , .46/^37, 832 (1912); 38, 881 (1912).

E33. , y. de Phys. 3, 111 (1913).

E34. and O. Stern, AdP ¥Xy 551 (1914).

E35. , Verb. Deutsch. Phys. Ges. 18, 318 (1916).

E36. , Mitt. Phys. Ges. Zurich 16, 47 (1916).

E37. , Phys. Zeitschr. 18, 121 (1917).

E38. , Z. Phys. 27, 392 (1924).

E39. , 7^.4 W', 1924, p. 261.

E40. , PAW, 1925, p. 3.

E41. , PAW, 1925, p. 18.

E42. , in Proceedings of the First Solvay Conference (P. Langevin and M. de Brog-

lie, Eds.), p. 407. Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1911.

E43. , in Kulturder Gegenwart (E. Lecher, Ed.). Teubner, Leipzig, 191 5 (2nd ed.,

1925).

E44. ,(E42|,p.441.

ENTROPY AND PROBABILITY

E45. [E3], Sec. 23.

E46. [E3],Scc. 11.

E47. A. Einstein, [E24], p. 187.

E48. , letter to M. Besso, March 17, 1903. EB, p. 13.

E49. ,[Elll,p. 184.

E50. , letter to M. Besso, January 1903. EB, p. 3.

E51. , letter to M. Grossmann, 1901, undated.

E52. , [Bl],p. 52.

E53. ,lE42],p. 436.

E54. , letter to M. Besso, June 23, 1918. EB, p. 126.

Gl. J. W. Gibbs, Elementary Principles of Statistical Mechanics. Yale University
Press, New Haven, Conn., 1902.

G2. , [Gl],Chap. 7.

HI. P. Hertz, 537 (1910), esp. p. 552.

Jl. See, e.g., S. Jahn, fahrb. Rad. Elektr. 6, 229 (1909), esp. p. 236.

Kl. T. S. Kuhn in Critical Problems in the History of Science (M. Clagett, Ed.), p.

321. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, 1962.

K2. M. Klein, Am. Scientist 58, 84 (1970).

K3. , in The Boltzmann Equation (E. G. D. Cohen and W. Thirring, Eds.), p.

53. Springer Verlag, New York, 1973.

K4. , Science 157, 509 (1967).

K5. , in Proceedings of the ferusalem Einstein Centennial Symposium, March

1979.

K6. , Paul Ehrenfest, Vol. 1, p. 176. North Holland, Amsterdam, 1970.

LI. P. T. Landsberg, Phys Rev. Lett. 45, 149 (1980).

L2. H. A. Lorentz, [E421, p. 441.

L3. , Entropie en Waarschynlykheid, p. 39. Brill, Leiden, 1923. Translated as

Lectures on Theoretical Physics (L. Silberstein and A. Trivelli, Trans.), Vol. II,
p. 175. Macmillan, London, 1927.

L4. J. Loschmidt, Wiener Ber. 73, 128 (1876), see esp. p. 139; 75, 67 (1877).

Ml. J. C. Maxwell, letter to P. G. Tait, December 11, 1867. Reprinted in C. G. Knott,
Life and Scientific Work of P. G. Tait, p. 213. Cambridge University Press, Cam-
bridge, 1911

M2. , letter to P. G. Tait, undated; Knott, p. 214.

M3. , letter to P. G. Tait, August 1873; Knott, p. 114.

PI. M. Planck, Verb. Deutsch. Phys. Ges. 2 , 237 (1900).

P2. , Verb. Deutsch. Phys. Ges. 2 , 202 (1900).

P3. , 4 , 553 (1901).

P4. W. ??i\x]:\,Collected Scientific Papers (R. Kronig and V. Weisskopf, Eds.), Vol. 1,
p. 549. Interscience, New York, 1964.

P5. R. Penrose in General Relativity (S. W. Hawking and W. Israel, Eds.), p. 581.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1979.

51. A. Sommerfeld, Phys. Zeitschr. 18, 533 (1917).

52. E. Salaman, Encounter, April 1979, p. 19.

S3 W. Schottky, Thermodynamik, p. 116. Springer, Berlin, 1929.

54. A. Sommerfeld, Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics, p. 213. Academic
Press, New York, 1956.

55. E. Schroedinger in E. Broda, Ludwig Boltzmann, p. 65. Deuticke, Vienna, 1955.

STATISTICAL PHYSICS

56. Se, p. 176.

57. Sc, p. 198.

58. Sc, p. 169.

Ul. G. E. Uhlenbcck and G. W. Ford, Lectures in Statistical Mechanics, Chap I.

American Mathematical Society, Providence, 1963.

VI . V. I. Arnold and A. Avez, Problemes Ergndiques de la Mecanique Classtque, CJau-

thier-Villars, Paris, 1967.

The Reality of Molecules

5a. About the Nineteenth Century, Briefly

/. Chemistry. In 1771 work was completed on the first edition of the Encyclo-
pedia Britannica, ‘a Dictionary of Arts and Sciences compiled upon a new plan
. . by a Society of Gentlemen in Scotland.’ The entry atom, written by William
Smellie, a man renowned for his devotion to scholarship and whisky [Kl], reads
as follows. 'Atom. In philosophy, a particle of matter, so minute as to admit no
division. Atoms are the minima naturae [smallest bodies] and are conceived as the
first principles or component parts of all physical magnitude.’ Democritus might
have disagreed, since his atoms were not necessarily minute. Epicurus might have
objected that the atom has structure — though it cannot be divided into smaller
parts by physical means. Both men might have found the definition incomplete
since it did not mention that atoms— as they believed— exist in an infinite variety
of sizes and shapes, any one variety being forever incapable of transforming itself
into any other. They might have wondered why no reference was made to the
TTpitirr] v\r], the prime matter of which all atoms are made. It is likely, however,
that an imaginary dialogue between the Greek and the late eighteenth century
philosophers might rapidly have led to a common understanding that in the two
thousand years which separated them very little had changed regarding the unde*-
standing of the basic structure o( matter.

I'he period of rapid change began in 1808, when John Dalton commenced the
publication of his New System of Chemical Philosophy [Dlj. This event marks
the birth of modern chemistry, according to which all modes of matter are
reducible to a finite number of atomic species (eighteen elements were known at
that time). Dalton’s early assessment (in 1810) of the youngest of the sciences
sounds very modern: i should apprehend there are a considerable number of what
may be properly called elementary principles, which can never be metamor-
phosed, one into another, by any power we can control. We ought, however, to
avail ourselves of every means to reduce the number of bodies or principles of this
appearance as much as possible; and after all we may not know what elements
are absolutely indecomposable, and what are refractory, because we do not know
the proper means for their reduction. We have already observed that all atoms of
the same kind, whether simple or compound, must necessarily be conceived to be

STATISTICAL PHYSICS

alike in shape, weight, and every other particular’ [Bl]. Note that Dalton’s com-
pound atom is what we call a molecule. Great confusion reigned through most of
the nineteenth century regarding such terminology, one man’s molecule being
another man’s atom. The need for a common language developed, but slowly.
Fifty years later, at the first international scientific conference ever held, the 1860
Karlsruhe congress of chemists,* the steering committee still considered it neces-
sary to put at the top of the agenda of points to be discussed the question, ‘Shall
a difference be made between the expressions molecule and atom, such that a
molecule be named the smallest particle of bodies which can enter into chemical
reactions and which may be compared to each other in regard to physical prop-
erties — atoms being the smallest particles of those bodies which are contained in
molecules?,’ [Ml]. More interesting than the question itself is the fact that, even
in 1860, no consensus was reached.

Especially illuminating for an understanding of science in the nineteenth cen-
tury are the topics discussed by young August Kekule von Stradonitz (who by
then had already discovered that carbon atoms are tetravalent) in the course of his
opening address to the Karlsruhe conference. ‘[He] spoke on the difference
between the physical molecule and the chemical molecule, and the distinction
between these and the atom. The physical molecule, refers, he said, to the particle
of gas, liquid, or solid in question. The chemical molecule is the smallest particle
of a body which enters or leaves a chemical reaction. These are not indivisible.
Atoms are particles not further divisible’ [Ml]. Both physics and chemistry could
have profited if more attention had been paid to the comment by Stanislao Can-
nizzaro, in the discussion following Kekulc’s paper, that the distinction between
physical and chemical molecules has no experimental basis and is therefore unnec-
essary. Indeed, perhaps the most remarkable fact about the nineteenth century
debates on atoms and molecules is the large extent to which chemists and physicists
spoke at cross purposes when they did not actually ignore each other. This is not
to say that there existed one common view among chemists, another among phys-
icists. Rather, in either camp there were many and often strongly diverging opin-
ions which need not be spelled out in detail here. It should suffice to give a few
illustrative examples and to note in particular the central themes. The principal
point of debate among chemists was whether atoms were real objects or only mne-
monic devices for coding chemical regularities and laws. The main issues for the
physicists centered around the kinetic theory of gases; in particular, around the
meaning of the second law of thermodynamics.

An early illustration of the dichotomies between the chemists and the physicists
is provided by Dalton’s opinion about the work of Joseph Louis Gay-Lussac.
Dalton’s chemistry was based on his law of multiple proportions; if there exists

*Thc meeting was held September 3-5, 1860. There were 127 chemists in attendance. Participants
came from Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Mexico, Poland, Russia, Spain,
Sweden, and Switzerland.

THE REALITY OF MOLECULES

more than one compound of two elements, then the ratios of the amounts of weight
of one element which bind with the same amounts of the other are simple integers.
As said, the publication of Dalton’s major opus began in 1808. In 1809, Gay-
Lussac published his law of combining volumes: the proportions by volume in
which gases combine are simple integers. Gay-Lussac mentioned that his results
were in harmony with Dalton’s atomic theory IGl]. Dalton, on the other hand,
did not believe Gay-Lussac: ‘His notion of measures is analogous to mine of atoms;
and if it could be proved that all elastic fluids have the same number of atoms in
the same volume, of numbers that are as 1, 2, 3, 4, etc., the two hypotheses would
be the same, except that mine is universal and his applies only to elastic fluids.
Gay-Lussac could not but see that a similar hypothesis had been entertained by
me and abandoned as untenable’ 1D2) (Elastic fluids are now better known as
gases.) Also, Dalton did not accept the hypothesis put forward in 1811 by Amedeo
Avogadro, that for fixed temperature and pressure equal volumes of gases contain
equal numbers of molecules [Al].* Nor was Dalton’s position one held only by a
single person for a brief time. By all accounts the high point of the Karlsruhe
congress was the address by Cannizzaro, in which it was still necessary for the
speaker to emphasize the importance of Avogadro’s principle for chemical consid-
erations.** That conference did not at once succeed in bringing chemists closer
together. ‘It is possible that the older men were offended by the impetuous behav-
ior and imposing manner o( the younger scientists’ [M2]. However, it was recalled
by Dmitri Ivanovich Mendeleev thirty years later that ‘the law of Avogadro
received by means of the congress a w’der development, and s(X)n afterwards con-
quered all minds’ |M3]

The law of Avogadro is the oldest ol those physical-chemical laws that rest on
the explicit assumption that molecules are real things. The tardiness with which
this law came to be accepted by the chemists clearly indicates their widespread
resistance to the idea of molecular reality. For details of the atomic debate among
chemists, I refer the reader to recent excellent monographs [B1 , N 1 ]. Here I men-
tion only some revealing remarks by Alexander Williamson, himself a convinced
atomist. In his presidential address of 1869 to the London Chemical Society, he
said, ‘It sometimes happens that chemists of high authority refer publicly to the
atomic theory as something they would be glad to dispense with, and which they
are ashamed of using. They seem to look upon it as something distinct from the
general facts of chemistry, and something which the science would gain by throw-
ing off entirely On the one hand, all chemists use the atomic theory, and . . .

on the other hand, a considerable number view it with mistrust, some with positive
dislike. If the theory really is as uncertain and unnecessary as they imagine it to

*'rhe reason for Dalton’s opposition was that he did not realize (as Avogadro did) that the smallest
particles of a gaseous element are not necessarily atoms but may be molecules

**The views of this remarkable man are most easily accessible in the English translation, published
in 1961, of an article he wrote in 1858 [ClJ

STATISTICAL PHYSICS

be, let its defects be laid bare and examined. Let them be remedied if possible, or
let the theory be rejected, and some other theory be used in its stead, if its defects
are really as irremediable and as grave as is implied by the sneers of its detractors’
(Wl).

As a final comment on chemistry in the nineteenth century, mention should be
made of another regularity bearing on the atomicity of matter and discovered in
that period. In an anonymous paper written in 181.5, William Prout, a prartising
physician in London with a great interest in chemistry, claimed to have shown
that the specific gravities of atomic species can be expressed as integral multiples
of a fundamental unit [PI]. In an addendum written the next year, and also pub-
lished anonymously [P2], he noted that this fundamental unit may be identified
with the specific gravity of hydrogen: ‘We may almost consider the Trpa^rTj uX?/ of
the ancients to be realized in hydrogen.’ Yet Prout did not consider his hypothesis
as a hint for the reality of atoms: ‘The light in which I have always been accus-
tomed to consider it [the atomic theory] has been very analogous to that in which
I believe most botanists now consider the Linnean system; namely, as a conven-
tional artifice, exceedingly convenient for many purposes but which does not rep-
resent nature’ [B2].

2. Kinetic Theory, TTie insight that gases are composed of discrete particles
dates back at least to the eighteenth century. Daniel Bernoulli may have been the
first to state that gas pressure is caused by the collisions of particles with the walls
within which they arc contained [B3]. The nineteenth century masters of kinetic
theory were atomists — by definition, one might say. In Clausius’s paper of 1857,
‘On the Kind of Motion We Call Heat’ [C2], the distinction between solids, liq-
uids, and gases is related to different types of molecular motion. In 1873, Maxwell
said, ‘Though in the course of ages catastrophes have occurred and may yet occur
in the heavens, though ancient systems may be dissolved and new systems evolved
out of their ruins, the molecules [i.e., atoms!] out of which these systems [the earth
and the whole solar system] are built — the foundation stones of the material uni-
verse — remain unbroken and unworn. They continue this day as they were cre-
ated— perfect in number and measure and weight . . .’ [M4].*

Boltzmann was less emphatic and in fact reticent at times, but he could hardly
have developed his theory of the second law had he not believed in the particulate
structure of matter. His assertion that entropy increases almost always, rather
than always, was indeed very hard to swallow for those who did not believe in
molecular reality. Planck, then an outspoken skeptic, saw this clearly when in
1883 he wrote, ‘The consistent implementation of the second law [i.e., to Planck,
increase of entropy as an absolute law] ... is incompatible with the assumption
of finite atoms. One may anticipate that in the course of the further development
of the theory a battle between these two hypotheses will develop which will cost

*Fanulay had reicrvationi. In 1844 he wrote, ‘The atomic doctrine ... ii at belt an astumption of
the truth of which we can atiert nothing, whatever we may say or think of iu probability* (W2).

THE REALITY OF MOLECULES

one of them its life’ [P3]. This is the battle which Ostwald joined in 1895 when
he addressed a meeting of the Deutsche Gesellschaft fiir Naturforscher und Arzte:
‘The proposition that all natural phenomena can ultimately be reduced to
mechanical ones cannot even be taken as a useful working hypothesis: it is simply
a mistake. This mistake is most clearly revealed by the following fact. All the
equations of mechanics have the property that they admit of sign inversion in the
temporal quantities. That is to say, theoretically perfectly mechanical processes
can develop equally well forward and backward [in time]. Thus, in a purely
mechanical world there could not be a before and an after as we have in our world:
the tree could become a shoot and a seed again, the butterfly turn back into a
caterpillar, and the old man into a child. No explanation is given by the mechan-
istic doctrine for the fact that this does not happen, nor can it be given because of
the fundamental property of the mechanical equations. The actual irreversibility
of natural phenomena thus proves the existence of processes that cannot be
described by mechanical equations; and with this the verdict on scientific materi-
alism is settled’ [01]. It was in essence a replay of the argument given by Lo-
schmidt twenty years earlier.

Such were the utterances with which Boltzmann, also present at that meeting,
had to cope. We are fortunate to have an eye-witness report of the ensuing dis-
cussion from a young physicist who attended the conference, Arnold Sommerfeld.
‘The paper on “Energetik” was given by Helm* from Dresden; behind him stood
Wilhelm Ostwald, behind both the philosophy of Ernst Mach, who was not pres-
ent. The opponent was Boltzmann, seconded by Felix Klein. Both externally and
internally, the battle between Boltzmann and Ostwald resembled the battle of the
bull with the supple fighter. However, this time the bull was victorious over the
torero in spite of the latter’s artful combat. The arguments of Boltzmann carried
the day. We, the young mathematicians of that time, were all on the side of Boltz-
mann; it was entirely obvious to us that one could not possibly deduce the equa-
tions of motion for even a single mass point — let alone for a system with many
degrees of freedom— from the single energy equation . . .’ [SI]. As regards the
position of Ernst Mach, it was anti-atomistic but of a far more sober variety than
Ostwald’s: ‘It would not become physical science [said Mach] to see in its self-
created, changeable, economical tools, molecules and atoms, realities behind phe-
nomena . . . the atom must remain a tool . . . like the function of mathematics
[M5].

Long before these learned fin de siecle discourses took place, in fact long before
the laws of thermodynamics were formulated, theoretical attempts had begun to
estimate the dimensions of molecules. As early as 1816 Thomas Young noted that
‘the diameter or distance of the particles of water is between the two thousand and

*Thc physicist Georg Helm was an ardent supporter of Ostwald’s ‘Energetik,’ according to which
molecules and atoms are but mathematical fictions and energy, in its many forms, the prime physical
reality.

STATISTICAL PHYSICS

the ten thousand millionth of an inch’ [Yl].* In 1866 Loschmidt calculated the
diameter of an air molecule and concluded that ‘in the domain of atoms and mol-
ecules the appropriate measure of length is the millionth of the millimeter’ [LI].
Four years later Kelvin, who regarded it ‘as an established fact of science that a
gas consists of moving molecules,’ found that ‘the diameter of the gaseous molecule
cannot be less than 2.10~’ of a centimeter’ (Tl). In 1873 Maxwell stated that the
diameter of a hydrogen molecule is about 6.10 ® cm [M6]. In that same year
Johannes Diderik van der Waals reported similar results in his doctoral thesis
[W3). By 1890 the spread in these values, and those obtained by others [84], had
narrowed considerably. A review of the results up to the late 1880s placed the
radii of hydrogen and air molecules between 1 and 2.10“® cm [R21, a remarkably
sensible range. Some of the physicists just mentioned used methods that enabled
them to also determine Avogadro’s number N, the number of molecules per mole.
For example, Loschmidt’s calculations of 1866 imply that N ~ 0.5 X 10^^ [LI],
and Maxwell found N ^ 4 X 10^^ [M6). The present best value [D3] is

6,02 X 10^' (5.1)

Toward the end of the nineteenth century, the spread in the various determina-
tions of N was roughly 10^^ to 10^\ an admirable achievement in view of the
crudeness — stressed by all who worked on the subject— of the models and meth-
ods used.

This is not the place to deal with the sometimes obscure and often wonderful
physics contained in these papers, in which the authors strike out into unexplored
territory. However, an exception should be made for the work of Loschmidt [LI |
since it contains a characteristic element which— as we shall s(K)n see — recurs in
the Einstein papers of 1905 on molecular radii and Avogadro’s number; the use
of two simultaneous equations in which two unknowns, N, and the molecular
diameter are expressed in terms of physically known quantities.

The first of the equations used by Loschmidt is the relation between d, the mean
free path X, and the number n of molecules per unit volume of a hard-sphere gas:
Xnwd^ = a calculable constant.*’*' The second relation concerns the quantity
mrd^/6, the fraction of the unit volume occupied by the molecules. Assume that
in the liquid phase these particles are closely packed. Then mrdy6 = p^^\. 17
where the p’s are the densities in the respective phases and the geometric
factor 1.17 is Loschmidt’s estimate for the ratio of the volume occupied by the
molecules in the liquid phase and their proper volume. Thus we have two equa-

*Young arrived at this estimate by a rather obscure argument relating the surface tension to the
range of the molecular forces and then equating this range with the molecular diameter. Rayleigh,
along with many others, had trouble understanding Young’s reasoning [R1 1.

’•This relation was derived by Clausius and Maxwell, The constant is equal to t/\/2 if one uses
the Maxwell velocity distribution of identical molecules. Loschmidt used Clausius’s value of X, which
follows if all the gas molecules arc assumed to have the same speed. References to refinements of
Loschmidt’s calculations arc found in [T21.

the reality of molecules

lions for n (hence for N) and d. (Loschmidt applied his reasoning to air, for which
X was known experimentally. However, in order to estimate the densities of liquid
oxygen and nitrogen, he had to use indirect theoretical estimates.)

It is not surprising that, on the whole, molecular reality met with less early
resistance in physics than it did in chemistry. As is exemplified by Loschmidt’s
1866 calculation, physicists could already do things with molecules at a time when
chemists could, for most purpioses, take them to be real or leave them as coding
devices. However, it became increasingly difficult in chemical circles to deny the
reality of molecules after 1874, the year in which Jacobus Henricus van ’t HolT
and Joseph Achille Le Bel independently explained the isomerism of certain
organic substances in terms of stereochemical properties of carbon compounds.
Even then skeptics did not yield at once (van ’t Hoff himself was initially quite
cautious on the issue, [N2)). But by the 1880s, the power of a truly molecular
picture was widely recognized.

In order to complete this survey of topics bearing on molecular reality prior to
the time Einstein got involved, it is necessary to add two further remarks.

3. The End of Indwisibdity. Until the very last years of the nineteenth cen-
tury, most if not all physicists who believed in the reality of atoms shared Max-
well’s view that these particles remain unbroken and unworn. ‘They are . . . the
only material things which still remain in the precise condition in which they first
began to exist,’ he wrote in his bwik 'Theory of Heat |M7], which contains the
finest expression of his atomic credo * It is true that many of these same physicists
(Maxwell among them) were convinced that something had to rattle inside the
atom in order to explain atomic spectra. Therefore, while there was a need for a
picture of the atom as a body with structure, this did not mean (so it seemed) that
one could take the atom apart. However, in 1899, two years after his discovery of
the electron, Joseph John Thomson announced that the atom had been split.
‘Electrification |that is, ionization] essentially involves the splitting of the atom, a
part of the mass of the atom getting free and becoming detached from the original
atom’ [T3]. By that time it was becoming increasingly clear that radioactive phe-
nomena (first discovered in 1896) also had to be explained in terms of a divisible
atom. ‘Atoms [of radioactive elements], indivisible from the chemical point of view,
are here divisible,’ Marie Curie wrote in 1900 [C3]. She added that the expla-
nation of radioactivity in terms of the expulsion of subatomic particles ‘seriously
undermines the principles of chemistry.’ In 1902 Ernest Rutherford and Frederick
Soddy proposed their transformation theory, according to which radioactive bodies
contain unstable atoms, a fixed fraction of which decay per unit time. Forty years
later, a witness to this event characterized the mood of those early times: It must
be difficult if not impossible for the young physicist or chemist to realize how

*To Maxwell, electrolytic dissociation was not at variance with the indivisibility of atoms— but that
is another story.

STATISTICAL PHYSICS

extremely bold [the transformation theory] was and how unacceptable to the
atomists of the time’ [R3].

Thus, at the turn of the century, the classical atomists, those who believed both
in atoms and in their indivisibility, were under fire from two sides. There was a
rapidly dwindling minority of conservatives, led by the influential Ostwald and
Mach, who did not believe in atoms at all. At the same time a new breed arose,
people such as J. J. Thomson, the Curies, and Rutherford, all convinced of the
reality of atoms and all — though not always without trepidation, as in the case of
Marie Curie — aware of the fact that chemistry was not the last chapter in particle
physics. For them, the ancient speculations about atoms had become reality and
the old dream of transmutation had become inevitable.

4. The End of Invisibility. If there was one issue on which there was agree-
ment between physicists and chemists, atomists or not, it was that atoms, if they
exist at all, are too small to be seen. Perhaps no one expressed this view more
eloquently than van der Waals in the closing lines of his 1873 doctoral thesis,
where he expressed the hope that his work might contribute to bringing closer the
time when ‘the motion of the planets and the music of the spheres will be forgotten
for a while in admiration of the delicate and artful web formed by the orbits of
those invisible atoms’ [W3].

Direct images of atoms were at last produced in the 1950s with the field ion
microscope [M8]. In a broad sense of the word, particles smaller than atoms were
‘seen’ much earlier, of course. At the turn of the century, alpha particles were
perceived as scintillations on zinc sulfide screens, electrons as tracks in a cloud
chamber. In an 1828 paper entitled, in part, ‘A Brief Account of Microscopical
Observations Made in the Months of June, July and August, 1827, on the Par-
ticles Contained in the Pollen of Plants’ [B5|, the botanist Robert Brown reported
seeing the random motion of various kinds of particles sufficiently fine to be sus-
pended in water. He examined fragments of pollen particles, ‘dust or soot depos-
ited on all bodies in such quantity, especially in London,’ particles from pulverized
rock, including a fragment from the Sphinx, and others. Today, we say that
Brown saw the action of the water molecules pushing against the suspended
objects. But that way of phrasing what we see in Brownian motion is as dependent
on theoretical analysis as is the statement that a certain cloud chamber track can
be identified as an electron.

In the case of Brownian motion, this analysis was given by Einstein, who
thereby became the first to make molecules visible. As a last preparatory step
toward Einstein’s analysis, I must touch briefly on what was known about dilute
solutions in the late nineteenth century.

5b. The Pots of Pfcffer and the Laws of van ’t Hoff

In the mid-1880s, van ’t Hoff, then professor of chemistry, mineralogy, and geol-
ogy at the University of Amsterdam, discovered in the course of his studies of

THE REALITY OF MOLECULES

chemical equilibrium in solutions ‘that there is a fundamental analogy, nay almost
an identity, with gases, more esp)ecially in their physical aspect, if only in solutions
we consider the so-called osmotic pressure. . . . We are not here dealing with a
fanciful analogy, but with one which is fundamental’ [HI]. The experimental
basis for these discoveries was provided by the measurements on osmosis through
rigid membranes performed a decade earlier by Wilhelm Pfeffer, then an extraor-
dinarius in Bonn [P4].

Let us first recall what van ’t Hoff meant by the osmotic pressure. Consider a
vessel filled with fluid, the solvent. A subvolume V of the fluid is enclosed by a
membrane that is fully permeable with respect to the solvent. Another species of
molecules, the solute, is inserted in V. If the membrane is fully impermeable to
the solute, solvent will stream into V until equilibrium is reached. In equilibrium,
the pressure on the membrane is an osmotic pressure. If the membrane has some
degree of elasticity, then this pressure will cause the membrane to dilate. For the
special case where the membrane is rigid and unyielding, the pressure exerted on
it is the osmotic pressure to which van ’t Hoff referred and which we shall always
have in mind in what follows. (This pressure can be sizable; for example, a 1%
sugar solution exerts a pressure of % atm.)

It is one of the great merits of Pfeffer, renowned also for his work in botany
and plant physiology, that he was the first to prepare such rigid membranes. He
did this by placing unglazed, porous, porcelain pots filled with an aqueous solution
of K 3 Fe(CN )6 in a bath filled with copper sulfate. The resulting precipitate of
Cu 2 Fe(CN)^ in the pores of the porcelain pots constituted the rigid membrane.
Pfeffer performed elaborate measurements with his new tool. His results led him
to suspect that ‘evidently there had to exist some connection between osmotic [pres-
sure] on the one hand and the size and number of molecules on the other’ [C4].
The connection conjectured by Pfeffer was found by Einstein and reported in his
doctoral thesis, with the help of the laws found by van ’t Hoff. In turn, van ’t
Hoff’s purely phenomenological discovery was based exclusively on the analysis
of data obtained by Pfeffer.

Van ’t Hoff’s laws apply to ideal solutions, ‘solutions which are diluted to such
an extent that they are comparable to ideal gases’ [HI].* For such ideal solutions,
his laws can be phrased as follows (it is assumed that no electrolytic dissociation
takes place):

1. In equilibrium, one has

pV=R'T (5.2)

independent of the nature of the solvent. In this analog of the Boyle-Gay-Lus-
sac law, p is the osmotic pressure, V the volume enclosed by the rigid mem-
brane, T the temperature, and R' a constant.

* Van ’t Hoff noted that a negligible heat of dilution is a practical criterion for solutions to be ideal.

STATISTICAL PHYSICS

2. The extension of Avogadro’s law: equal volumes of solutions at the same p and
T contain the same number of solute molecules. This number is equal to the
number of gas molecules at the same (gas) pressure p and the same T. Hence,
for one gram-mole

/?'=/? (5.3)

where R is the gas constant. Thus, after van ’t HolF, the liquid phase oirered
a new way of measuring the gas constant and, consequently, new possibilities
for the determination of Avogadro’s number.

‘The fact that the dissolved molecules of a diluted solution exert on a semi-
permeable membrane— in spite of the presence of the solvent — exactly the same
pressure as if they alone were present, and that in the ideal gas state — this fact is
so startling that attempts have repeatedly been made to find a kinetic interpreta-
tion that was as lucid as possible’, Ehrenfest wrote in 1915 [Elj. Einstein briefly
discussed the statistical derivation of van ’t HofTs laws in 1905 [E2]; more impor-
tant, however, are the applications he made of these laws.

In 1901, van ’t Hoff became the first to receive the Nobel prize for chemistry.
The presentation speech delivered on that occasion illustrates vividly that, at the
beginning of the twentieth century, molecular reality had become widely accepted
among chemists as well as physicists: ‘He proved that gas pressure and osmotic
pressure are identical, and thereby that the molecules themselves in the gaseous
phase and in solutions are also identical. As a result of this, the concept of the
molecule in chemistry was found to be definite and universally valid to a degree
hitherto undreamed of [N3].

5c. The Doctoral Thesis

In his PhD thesis, Einstein described a new theoretical method for determining
molecular radii and Avogadro’s number. From a comparison of his final equations
with data on sugar solutions in water, he found that

= 2.1 X 10'' (5.4)

The printed version of his thesis [E3) carries the dedication ‘to my friend Marcel
Grossman’ and gives April 30, 1905, as the completion date. Einstein did not sub-
mit his dissertation to the dean of the philosophical faculty, Section II, at the
University of Zurich until July 20 (E4]. This delay may have had its technical
reasons. More imprtant, probably, was the fact that, between April and July,
Einstein was rather busy with other things: during those months he completed his
first papers on Brownian motion and on the special theory of relativity. The thesis
was rapidly accepted. On July 24* the dean forwarded to the faculty for their

* Einstein later recalled that, after having been told that the manuscript was too short, he added one
sentence, whereupon it was accepted {S2j. I have found no trace of such a communication, nor is it
clear to me when this exchange could have taken place.

THE REALITY OF MOLECULES

approval the favorable reports by Kleiner and by Burkhardt, who had been asked
by Kleiner to check the most important parts of the calculations. The faculty
approved (Burkhardt had failed to note a rather important mistake in Einstein’s
calculations— but that comes later). Einstein was now Herr Doktor.

It is not sufficiently realized that Einstein’s thesis is one of his most fundamental
papers. Histories and biographies invariably refer to 1905 as the miraculous year
because of his articles on relativity, the light-quantum, and Brownian motion. In
my opinion, the thesis is on a par with the Brownian motion article. In fact, in
some — not all — respects, his results on Brownian motion are by-products of his
thesis work. This goes a long way toward explaining why the paper on Brownian
motion was received by the Annalen der Physik on May 11, 1905, only eleven
days after the thesis had been completed

Three weeks after the thesis was accepted, this same journal received a copy
(without dedication) for publication. It was published (E5] only after Einstein
supplied a brief addendum in January 1906 (I shall refer to this paper as the
1906 paper). As a result of these various delays, the thesis appeared as a paper in
the Annalen der Physik only aftei the Brownian motion article had come out in
the same journal. This may have helped create the impression in some quarters
(see, for example, [L21) that the relation between diffusion and viscosity — a very
important equation due to Einstein and Sutherland — was first obtained in Ein-
stein’s paper on Brownian motion. Actually, it first appeared in his thesis.

In the appendix to the 1906 paper, Einstein gave a new and (as turned out
later) improved value for N-

AT = 4.15 X UP (5.5)

The large difference between this value and his value of eight months earlier was
entirely due to the availability of better data on sugar solutions.

Quite apart from the fundamental nature of some results obtained in the thesis,
there is another reason why this paper is of uncommon interest: it has had more
widespread practical applications than any other paper Einstein ever wrote.

The patterns of scientific reference as traced through the study of citations are,
as with Montaigne’s description of the human mind, ondoyant et divers.
The history of Einstein’s influence on later works, as expressed by the frequency
of citations of his papers, offers several striking examples. Of the eleven scientific
articles published by any author before 1912 and cited most frequently between
1961 and 1975, four are by Einstein. Among these four, the thesis (or, rather, the
1906 paper) ranks first; then follows a sequel to it (to which I return later in this
section), written in 1911. The Brownian motion paper ranks third, the paper on
critical opalescence fourth. At the top of the list of Einstein s scientific articles cited
most heavily during the years 1970 to 1974 is the 1906 paper. It was quoted four
times as often as Einstein’s first survey article of 1916 on general relativity and
eight times as often as his 1905 paper on the light-quantum [C5].

STATISTICAL PHYSICS

Of course, relative citation frequencies are no measure of relative importance.
Who has not aspired to write a paper so fundamental that very soon it is known
to everyone and cited by no one? It is nevertheless obvious that there must be valid
reasons for the popularity of Einstein’s thesis. These are indeed not hard to find:
the thesis, dealing with bulk rheological properties of particle suspensions, con-
tains results which have an extraordinarily wide range of applications. They are
relevant to the construction industry (the motion of sand particles in cement mixes
[R4]), to the dairy industry (the motion of casein micelles in cow’s milk [D4]),
and to ecology (the motion of aerosol particles in clouds [Y2]), to mention but a
few scattered examples. Einstein might have enjoyed hearing this, since he was
quite fond of applying physics to practical situations.

Let us consider Einstein’s Doktorarbeit in some detail. His first step is hydro-
dynamic. Consider the stationary flow of an incompressible, homogeneous fluid.

If efTects of acceleration are neglected, then the motion of the fluid is described by
the Navier-Stokes equations:

Vp — rj Av div t; = 0 (5.6)

where y is the velocity, p the Viydrostatic pressure, and i) t\\e \\sco?\\.y .>^ex.v,\nser\.
a large number of identical, rigid, spherical particles in the fluid. The radius of
the solute particles is taken to be large compared with the radius of the solvent
molecules so that the solvent can still be treated as a continuum. The solution is
supposed to be dilute; the total volume of the particles is much smaller than the
volume of the liquid. Assume further that (1) the overall motion of the system is
still Navier- Stokes, (2) the inertia of the solute particles in translation and their
rotational motion can be neglected, (3) there are no external forces, (4) the motion
of any one of the little spheres is not affected by the presence of any other little
sphere, (5) the particles move under the influence of hydrodynamic stresses at
their surface only, and (6) the boundary condition of the flow velocity v is taken
to be * 0 on the surface of the spheres. Then, Einstein showed, the flow can
still be described by Eq. 5,6 provided rj is replaced by a new ‘effective viscosity’
n*, given by

»?* = » (1 + v») (5.7)

where ^ is the fraction of the unit volume occupied by the (uniformly distributed)
spheres. Let the hard spheres represent molecules (which do not dissociate). Then

Np 4t

(5.8)

where N is Avogadro’s number, a the molecular radius, m the molecular weight
of the solute, and p the amount of mass of the solute per unit volume. Einstein
had available to him values for for dilute solutions of sugar in water, and tp

THE REALITY OF MOLECULES

and m were also known. Thus Eqs. 5.7 and 5.8 represent one relation between
the two unknowns N and a.

The next thing that Einstein of course did (in the spirit of Loschmidt*) was
find a second connection between N and a. To this end, he used a reasoning which
is partly thermodynamic, partly dynamic. This argument is sketched in his thesis
and repeated in mbre detail in his first paper on Brownian motion [E2). It is
extremely ingenious.

Consider first an ideal gas and a time-independent force K acting on its mole-
cules in the negative x direction. The force exerted per unit volume equals KpN/
m. In thermal equilibrium, the balance between this force and the gas pressure p
is given by

m dx m dx

where R is the gas constant. Now, Einstein reasoned, according to van ’t Hoff’s
law, Eq. 5.9 should also hold for dilute solutions as long as the time-independent
force K acts only on the solute molecules.

Let K impart a velocity v (relative to the solvent) to the molecules of the solute.
If the mean free path of the solvent molecules is much less than the diameter of
lUe solule molecules, then (also In view of ihe boundary condition t» = 0 on the
surface of the solute particles) we have the well-known Stokes relation

K = ()T^7]av (5.10)

so that, under the influence of K, KpN/6Tnjam solute molecules pass in the neg-
ative X direction per unit area per second. The resulting concentration gradient
leads to a diffusion in the x direction of DN/m. (dp/dx) particles/cmVsec, where,
by definition, D is the diffusion coefficient. Dynamic equilibrium demands that
the magnitude of the diffusion current equal the magnitude of the current induced
by K:

Girr^a

(5.11)

Then, from the thermal equilibrium condition (Eq. 5.9) and the dynamic equilib-
rium condition (Eq. 5.11)

RT 1
N 6Tn}a

(5.12)

Observe that the force K has canceled out in Eq. 5.12. The trick was therefore to
use K only as an intermediary quantity to relate the diffusion coefficient to the

•See Section 5a. The only nineteenth century method for finding N and a that Einstein discussed
in his 1915 review article on kinetic theory (£61 was the one by Loschmidt.

STATISTICAL PHYSICS

viscosity in the Stokes regime. Equation 5.12 is the second relation for the two
unknowns N and a.

By a quite remarkable coincidence, Eq. 5.12 was discovered in Australia at
practically the same time Einstein did his thesis work. In March 1905 William
Sutherland submitted a paper that contained the identical result, arrived at by the
method just described [S2a]. Thus, Eq. 5.12 should properly be called the Suth-
erland- Einstein relation.

Note that the derivation of Eq. 5.12 is essentially independent of any details
regarding the motion of the solute particles. Therein lies the strength of the argu-
ment that, as a theme with variations, recurs a number of times in Einstein’s later
work: a ‘systematic force,’ a drag force of the Stokesian type (that is, proportional
to the velocity) balances with a random, or fluctuating, force. In the present case,
as well as for Brownian motion, the fluctuating force is the one generated by the
thermal molecular motions in the environment, the fluctuations leading to a net
diffusion. Later, in 1909 and again in 1917, Einstein was to use the balance
between a Stokesian force and a fluctuating force generated by electromagnetic
radiation.

As to the contents of Einstein’s thesis, all was quiet for the five years following
its publication. Then a Mr. Bacelin, a pupil of Jean Baptiste Perrin’s, informed
Einstein of measurements which gave a value for t/* that was too high to be com-
patible with Eq. 5.7. As we shall see in the next section, by this time Perrin had
a very good idea how big N had to be. Therefore, rj* could now be computed
(knowing a from other sources) and the result could be compared with experi-
ment! Upon hearing this news, Einstein set one of his own pupils to work, who
discovered that there was an elementary but nontrivial mistake in the derivation
of Eq. 5.7. The correct result is [E7]

With the same data that Einstein had used earlier to obtain Eq 5.5, the new value
for N is

= 6.6 X 10'' (5.14)

a far better result, on which I shall comment further in the next section.

In conclusion, it is now known that Einstein’s Eq. 5.13 is valid only for values
of V? < 0.02.* Theoretical studies of corrections 0(^') to the rhs of Eq. 5.13 were
made as late as 1977. Effects that give rise to terms are two-particle correlations
[B6] and also a phenomenon not yet discussed in the thesis: the Brownian motion
of the solute particles [B7].

•See the reviews by Rutgers, which contain detailed comparisons of theory with experiment, as well
as a long list of proposals to modify Eq. 5.13 [R5j.

THE REALITY OF MOLECULES

5d. Eleven Days Later: Brownian Motion*

1. Another Bit of Nineteenth Century History. During the nineteenth century,
it had become clear from experiments performed in various laboratories that
Brownian motions increase with decreasing size and density of the suspended par-
ticles (10~^ mm is a typical particle radius above which these motions are hardly
observable) and with decreasing viscosity and increasing temperature of the host
liquid. Another important outcome of this early research was that it narrowed
down the number of possible explanations of this phenomenon, beginning with
Brown’s own conclusion that it had nothing to do with small things that are alive.
Further investigations eliminated such causes as temperature gradients, mechan-
ical disturbances, capillary actions, irradiation of the liquid (as long as the result-
ing temperature increase can be neglected), and the presence of convection currents
within the liquid. As can be expected, not all of these conclusions were at once
generally accepted without controversy.

In the 1860s, the view emerged that the cause of the phenomenon was to be
found in the internal motions of the fluid. From then on, it did not take long before
the more specific suggestion was made that the zigzag motions of the suspended
particles were due to collisions with the molecules of the fluid. At least three phys-
icists proposed this independently: Giovanni Cantoni from Pavia and the two Bel-
gian Jesuits Joseph Delsaulx and Ignace Carbonelle. Of course, this was a matter
of speculation rather than proof. ‘lo penso che il moto di danza delle particelle
solide . . . possa attribuirsi alle difTerenti velocita che esser devono . . . sia in coteste
particelli solide, sia nelle molecole del liquido che le urtano da ogni banda,’ wrote
Cantoni [06].** ‘[Les] mouvements browniens . . . seraient, dans ma maniere de
considerer le phenomene, le resultat des mouvements moleculaires calorifiques du
liquide ambiani,’ wrote Delsaulx [D5].t

However, these proposals soon met with strong opposition, led by the Swiss
botanist Carl von Naegeli and by William Ramsey. Their counterargument was
based on the incorrect assumption that every single zig or zag in the path of a
suspended particle should be due to a single collision with an individual molecule.
Even though experiments were not very quantitative at that lime, it was not dif-
ficult to realize that this assumption led to absurdities. Nevertheless, the expla-

* Einstein’s papers on Brownian motion as well as the 1906 paper have been collected in a handy
little b(X)k by Forth [FI, F21 A useful though not complete set of references to nineteenth century
experimental work and theoretical speculation can be found in a paper by Smoluchowski 153), see
also [B8] and [N4]

believe that the dancing motion of the solid particles can be attributed to the dilTerent veloc-
ities which ought to be ascribed either to the said solid particles, or to the molecules of the liquid
which hit (these solid particles] from all directions

fin my way of considering the phenomenon, the Brownian motions should be the consequence of
the molecular heat motions of the ambient liquid

STATISTICAL PHYSICS

nation in terms of molecular collisions was not entirely abandoned. Take, for
example, the case of Louis Georges Gouy, who did some of the best nineteenth
century experiments on Brownian motion. He agreed with the remark by Naegeli
and Ramsey, but conjectured that the molecules in liquids travel in organized
bunches so that an individual kick imparted to a suspended particle would be due
to the simultaneous action of a large number of molecules.

Gouy was also the first to note that it was not easy to comprehend Brownian
motion from a thermodynamic point of view. It seemed possible to him — at least
in principle — that one could construct a perpetuum mobile of the second kind
driven by those ceaseless movements (It should be mentioned that the explicit dis-
proof of this statement is delicate. The best paper on this question is by Leo Szi-
lard [S4].). This led Gouy to express the belief that Carnot’s principle (the second
law of thermodynamics) might not apply to domains with linear dimensions of the
order of one micrometer [G21.

Poincare — often called on at the turn of the century to pronounce on the status
of physics — brought these ideas to the attention of large audiences. In his opening
address to the 1900 International Congress of Physics in Paris, he remarked, after
referring to Gouy’s ideas on Brownian motion, ‘One would believe seeing Max-
well’s demon at work’ [PS). In a lecture entitled ‘The Crises of Mathematical
Physics,’ given before the Congress of Arts and Science in St. Louis in 1904, he
put Carnot’s principle at the head of his list of endangered general laws: ‘[Brown]
first thought that [Brownian motion] was a vital phenomenon, but soon he saw
that inanimate bodies dance with no less ardor than the others; then he turned the
matter over to the physicists. . . . We see under our eyes now motion transformed
into heat by friction, now heat changed inversely into motion. This is the contrary
of Carnot’s principle’ [P6].

2. The Overdetermination of N, In 1905, Einstein was blissfully unaware of
the detailed history of Brownian motion. At that time, he knew neither Poincare’s
work on relativity nor the latter’s dicta ‘On the Motion Required by the Molec-
ular Kinetic Theory of Heat of Particles Suspended in Fluids at Rest,’ as Einstein
entitled his first paper on Brownian motion [E2]. In referring to fluids at rest, he
clearly had in mind the fluids in motion dealt with in his previous paper, finished
eleven days earlier. The absence of the term Brownian motion in this title is
explained in the second sentence of the paper: ‘It is possible that the motions dis-
cussed here are identical with the so-called Brownian molecular motion; the ref-
erences accessible to me on the latter subject are so imprecise, however, that I
could not form an opinion about this.’

This paper, received by the Annalen der Physik on May 11, 1905, marks the
third occasion in less than two months on which Einstein makes a fundamental
discovery bearing on the determination of Avogadro’s number. The three methods
are quite distinct. The first one (submitted to the Annalen on March 18, 1905),
in which use is made of the long-wavelength limit of the blackbody radiation law,

THE REALITY OF MOLECULES

gave him N = 6.17 X 10^^ (!).* The second one makes use of the incompressible
flow of solutions and gave him == 2.1 X 10^^ as we saw in the previous section.
The third one, on Brownian motion, gave him a formula but not yet a number.
‘May some researcher soon succeed in deciding the question raised here, which is
important for the theory of heat,^ he wrote at the end of this paper.** Even though
he did not know the literature, he was right in surmising that the appropriate data
were not yet available. It would soon be otherwise. Incidentally, neither in his
thesis nor in his Brownian motion paper does Einstein mention that in 1905 he
had made not just one but several proposals for determining N. If sparseness of
references to the work of others is typical of his writings, so it is with references
to his own work. He never was a man to waste much time on footnotes.

Einstein was still not done with the invention of new ways for obtaining Avo-
gadro’s number. Later in the year, in December, he finished his second paper on
Brownian motion, which contains two further methods for finding N [E8]. In
1907 he noted that measurements of voltage fluctuations give another means for
determining N [E9]. In 1910 he gave yet another method, critical opalescence
[ElO]. He must have realized that the ubiquity of N would once and for all settle
the problem of molecular reality, as indeed it did.

It was indicated earlier that, as the nineteenth century drew to an end, the
acceptance of the reality of atoms and molecules was widespread, though there
were still some pockets of resistance. Nevertheless, it is correct to say that the
debate on molecular reality came to a close only as a result of developments in the
first decade of the twentieth century. This was not just because of Einstein’s first
paper on Brownian motion or of any single good determination of N. Rather, the
issue was settled once and for all because of the extraordinary agreement in the
values of N obtained by many different methods. Matters were clinched not by a
determination but by an overdetermination of N. From subjects as diverse as
radioactivity. Brownian motion, and the blue in the sky, it was possible to state,
by 1909, that a dozen independent ways of measuring N yielded results all of
which lay between 6 and 9 X 10^^ In concluding his 1909 memoir on the subject,
Perrin [P7, P8] had every reason to state, ‘I think it is impossible that a mind free
from all preconception can reflect upon the extreme diversity of the phenomena
which thus converge to the same result without expjeriencing a strong impression,
and I think that it will henceforth be difficult to defend by rational arguments a
hostile attitude to molecular hyptheses’ [P81.t

3. Einsteins First Paper on Brownian Motion. Enlarging on an earlier com-
ment, I shall explain next in what sense this first papr on Brownian motion is

*Scc Section 19b.

**I heed Einstein’s remark (E2] that his molecular-kinetic derivation of van ’t Hoffs law, also
contained in this article, is not essential to an understanding of the rest of his arguments.

+For the status of our knowledge about N in 1980, see (D3].

STA'I ISTICAI. PHYSICS

a scholium to the doctoral thesis. To this end, I return to the relation between the
diffusion coefficient D and the viscosity rj discussed previously

D =

RT 1

N 6Tnia

(5.12)

where a is the radius of the hard-sphere molecules dissolved in the liquid. Recall
the following main points that went into the derivation of Rq. 5.12;

1. The applicability of van ’i Hoff’s laws (Eqs. 5.2 and 5.3)

2. The validity of Stokes’s law (Eq. 5.10)

3. The mechanism of diffusion in the x direction, described by the equation (not
explicitly used in the foregoing)

d^n

( 5 . 15 )

where n(x, t) is the number of particles per unit volume around .v at time /.

The essence of Einstein’s attack on Brownian motion is his observation that, as
far as these three facts are concerned, what is good for solutions is good for
suspensions:

1 . Van ’t Hoff’s laws should hold not only for dilute solutions but also for dilute
suspensions: ‘One does not see why for a number of suspended bodies the same
osmotic pressure should not hold as for the same number of dissolved mole-
cules’ [£ 2 ).

2. Without making an explicit point of it, Einstein assumes that Stokes’s law
holds. Recall that this implies that the liquid is treated as a continuous medium.
(It also implies that the suspended particles all have the same radius.)

3. Brownian motion is described as a diffusion process subject to Eq. 5.15. (For
simplicity, Einstein treats the motion as a one-dimensional problem.)

Now then, consider the fundamental solution of Eq. 5.15 corres{X)nding to a
situation in which at time ^ = 0 all particles are at the origin:

n(x,t) = - exp ( — 77 - ) (5.16)

\/47rD/ V 4D/y

where n = ^n{x)dx. Then, the mean .square displacement (x^) from the origin
is given by

(x^>

J x^n(xj) dx = 2Dt

(5.17)

From Eqs. 5.12 and 5.17

R7'

^irNari

(5.18)

THE REALITY OF MOLECULES

In this, Einstein’s fundamental equation for Brownian motion, (x^), t, a, rj are
measurable; therefore N can be determined. As mentioned earlier, one never
ceases to experience surprise at this result, which seems, as it were, to come out
of nowhere: prepare a set of small spheres which are nevertheless huge compared
with simple molecules, use a stopwatch and a microscope, and find Avogadro’s
number.

As Einstein emphasized, it is not necessary to assume that all particles are at
the origin at / = 0. That is to say, since the particles are assumed to move inde-
pendently, one can consider n{xj)dx to mean the number of particles displaced
by an amount between x and x + dx in t seconds. He gave an example: for water
at 17°C, a ^ 0.001 mm, N ^ 6 X 10^^ one has {x^y^^ ~ 6 ^m if / = 1
minute.

Equation 5.18 is the first instance of a fluctuation-dissipation relation: a mean
square fluctuation is connected with a dissipative mechanism phenomenologically
described by the viscosity parameter.

Einstein’s paper immediately drew widespread attention. In September 1906
he received a letter from Wilhelm Conrad Roentgen asking him for a reprint of
the papers on relativity. In the same letter Roentgen also expressed great interest
in Einstein’s work on Brownian motion, asked him for his opinion on Gouy’s
ideas and added, it is probably difficult to establish harmony between [Brownian
motion] and the second law of thermodynamics’ |R6]. It is hard to imagine that
Einstein would not have replied to such a distinguished colleague. Unfortunately,
Einstein’s answer (if there was one) has not been located.

4. Di ffusion as a Markovian Process All the main physics of the first Einstein
paper on Brownian motion is contained in Eq. 5.18. However, this same paper
contains another novelty, again simple, again profound, having to do with the
interpretation of Eq. 5.15. This equation dates from the nineteenth century and
was derived and applied in the context of continuum theories. In 1905 Einstein,
motivated by his reflections on Brownian motion, gave a new derivation of the
diffusion equation.

As was already done in the derivation of Eq 5.12, assume (Einstein said) that
the suspended particles move independently of each other. Assume further that we
can define a time interval r that is small compared with the time interval of obser-
vation (/ in Eq. 5.18) while at the same time r is so large that the motion of a
particle during one interval r does not depend on its history prior to the com-
mencement of that interval. Let (t)(A)dA be the probability that a particle is dis-
placed, in an interval r, by an amount between A and A T c/A. The probability
0 is normalized and symmetric:

0(A)</A = 1

m = <!>(- S)

(5.19)

STATISTICAL PHYSICS

Since the particles move independently, we can relate n{x,t -f r)dx{o the distri-
bution at time t by

r 00

n(xd + T)dx = dx I n(x -I- A,/) (t>(^)dA (5.20)

J -oo

Develop the Ihs to first order in r, the rhs to second order in A, and use Eq. 5.19.
Then we recover Eq. 5.15, where D is now defined as the second moment of the
probability distribution 0:

I> = ^J^AV(AVA (5.21)

All information on the dynamics of collision is contained in the explicit form of
0(A). The great virtue of Eq. 5.18 is therefore that it is independent of all details
of the collision phenomena except for the very general conditions that went into
the derivation of Eq. 5.21.

Today we would say that, in 1905, Einstein treated diffusion as a Markovian
process (so named after Andrei Andreievich Markov, who introduced the so-called
Markov chains in 1906), thereby establishing a link between the random walk of
a single particle and the diffusion of many particles.

5. The Later Papers. I give next a brief review of the main points contained
in Einstein’s later papers on Brownian motion.

1) December 1905 [ES). Having been informed by colleagues that the consid-

erations of the preceding paper indeed fit, as to order of magnitude, with the
experimental knowledge on Brownian motion, Einstein entitles his new paper ‘On
the Theory of Brownian Motion.’ He gives two new applications of his earlier
ideas: the vertical distribution of a suspension under the influence of gravitation
and the Brownian rotational motion for the case of a rotating solid sphere. Cor-
respondingly, he finds two new equations from which N can be determined. He
also notes that Eq. 5.18 cannot hold for small values of t since that equation
implies that the mean velocity, becomes infinite as / 0. ‘The reason

for this is that we . . . implicitly assumed that, during the time /, the phenomenon
is independent of [what happened] in earlier times. This assumption applies less
well as / gets smaller.’*

2) December 1906 [E9]. A brief discussion of ‘a phenomenon in the domain
of electricity which is akin to Brownian motion’: the (temperature-dependent)
mean square fluctuations in the potential between condensor plates.

3) January 1907 [Ellj. Einstein raises and answers the following question.
Since the suspension is assumed to obey van ’t Hoff’s law, it follows from the
equipartition theorem that (i^^), the mean square of the instantaneous particle
velocity, equals 3RT/mN (m is the mass of the suspended particle). Thus, (v^)

•The general solution for all / was given independently by Ornstein [02] and FUrth [F3].

THE REALITY OF MOLECULES

is larger by many orders of magnitude than {x^} the squared average velocity
computed from Eq. 5.18 for reasonable values of t. Is this paradoxical? It is not,
since one can estimate that the instantaneous velocity changes magnitude and
direction in periods of about 10“^ s; is therefore unobservable in Brownian
motion experiments. Here is also the answer to the Naegeli- Ramsey objection.

4) 1908. At the suggestion of the physical chemist Richard Lorenz, Einstein
writes an elementary expose of the theory of Brownian motion [E12J.

This completes the account of Einstein’s contributions to Brownian motion in
the classical domain. Applications to the quantum theory will be discussed in Part
VI. I conclude with a few scattered comments on the subsequent history of clas-
sical Brownian motion.

Einstein’s relation (Eq. 5.18) is now commonly derived with the help of the
Langevin equation (derived by Paul Langevin in 1908 [L3)). The first review
article on Brownian motion appeared in 1909 [Jl]. In later years, the subject
branched out in many directions, including the behavior for small values of t, the
non-Stokesian case, and the presence of external forces [W4]. Brownian motion
was still a subject of active research in the 1970s [B9).

The rapid experimental confirmation of Einstein’s theory by a new generation
of experiments, in particular the key role of Jean Perrin and his school, has been
described by Nye [NlJ. Perrin’s own account in his book Les Atomes [PO], first
published in 1913 (and also available in English translation [PIO]), remains as
refreshing as ever.* This work contains not only an account of the determination
of N from Brownian motion but also a summary of all methods for determining
N which had been put to the test at that time. It is remarkable that the method
proposed by Einstein in his thesis is missing. I mentioned earlier that a commu-
nication by a pupil of Perrin had led Einstein to discover a mistake in his thesis.
Perrin must have known about this, since Einstein wrote to him shortly afterward
to thank him for this information and to inform him of the correct result [EH].
Einstein’s very decent value for N (Eq. 5.14) was published in 1911. Its absence
in Perrin’s book indicates that Einstein’s doctoral thesis was not widely appreci-
ated in the early years. This is also evident from a brief note published by Einstein
in 1920 [El 4] for the sole purpose of drawing attention to his erratum published
in 1911 [E7] ‘which till now seems to have escaped the attention of all who work
in this field.’

‘I had believed it to be impossible to investigate Brownian motion so precisely,’
Einstein wrote to Perrin from Zurich late in 1909 [El 5]. This letter also shows
that, by that time, Einstein’s preoccupation had moved to the quantum theory. He
asked Perrin if any significance should be attached to the 1 5 per cent difference
between the values of obtained from Planck’s blackbody radiation law and from

Perrin’s collected papers are also strongly recommended (PI 1].

100

STATISTICAL PHYSICS

Brownian motion. This difference seemed to him to be ‘disquieting, since one must
say that the theoretical foundation of Planck’s formula is fictitious.’

The foregoing account of Einstein’s work on Brownian motion emphasizes its
role in securing general acceptance of the reality of molecules. That, however, was
not the only thing nor, in Einstein’s own opinion, the most important thing that
his theory of Brownian motion did for the development of physics. In 1915, he
wrote about this work;

[It] is of great importance since it permits an exact computation of N . I’he
great significance as a matter of principle is, however, . that one sees directly
under the microscope part of the heat energy in the form of mechanical energy
[E61

and in 1917:

Because of the understanding of the essence of Brownian motion, suddenly all
doubts vanished about the correctness of Boltzmann’s interpretation of the ther-
modynamic laws (El 6)

5e. Einstein and Smoluchowski; Critical Opalescence

If Marian Ritter von Smolan-Smoluchowski had been only an outstanding theo-
retical physicist and not a fine experimentalist as well, he would probably have
been the first to publish a quantitative theory of Brownian motion.

Smoluchowski, born to a Polish family, spent his early years in Vienna, where
he also received his university education. After finishing his studies in 1894, he
worked in several laboratories abroad, then returned to Vienna, where he became
Privatdozent. In 1900 he became professor of theoretical physics in Lemberg (now
Lvov), where he stayed until 1913. In that period he did his major work. In 1913
he took over the directorship of the Institute for Experimental Physics at the
Jagiellonian University in Cracow. There he died in 1917, the victim of a dys-
entery epidemic.*

It is quite remarkable how often Smoluchowski and Einstein simultaneously
and independently pursued similar if not identical problems. In 1904 Einstein
worked on energy fluctuations [El 7], Smoluchowski on particle number fluctua-
tions [S5] of an ideal gas. Einstein completed his first paper on Brownian motion
in May 1905; Smoluchowski his in July 1906 [S3). Later on, we shall encounter
a further such example. Let us first stay with Brownian motion, however.

Unlike Einstein, Smoluchowski was fully conversant with the nineteenth cen-

•For a detailed account of the life and work of Smoluchowski, the reader is referred to the biography
by Teske |T4], in which the Einstcin-Smoluchowski correspondence referred to hereafter is repro-
duced. My understanding of Smoluchowski’s contributions was much helped by my reading of an
unpublished manuscript by Mark Kac.

THE REALITY OF MOLECULES

101

tury studies on Brownian motion, not least because he had remained in touch with
Felix Exner, a comrade from student days who had done very good experimental
work on the subject. Indeed, Smoluchowski’s paper of 1906 contains a critique of
all explanations of the phenomenon prior to Einstein’s. Like Einstein (but prior
to him) Smoluchowski also refuted the Naegeli- Ramsey objection, pointing out
that what we see in Brownian motion is actually the average motion resulting
from about 10^® collisions per second with the molecules of the ambient liquid. He
also countered another objection; ‘Naegeli believes that [the effect of the collisions]
should in the average cancel each other. . . . This is the same conceptual error as
when a gambler would believe that he could never lose a larger amount than a
single stake.’ Smoluchowski followed up this illustrative comment by computing
the probability of some fixed gain (including sign!) after a prescribed number of
tosses of a coin.

Smoluchowski began his 1906 paper [S3] by referring to Einstein’s two articles
of 1905: ‘The findings [of those papers] agree completely with some results which
I had . . . obtained several years ago and which I consider since then as an impor-
tant argument for the kinetic nature of this phenomenon.’ Then why had he not
published earlier? ‘Although it has not been possible for me till now to undertake
an experimental test of the consequences of this point of view, something I origi-
nally intended to do, I have decided to publish these considerations. . . .’ In support
of this decision, he stated that his kinetic method seemed more direct, simpler, and
therefore more convincing than Einstein’s, in which collision kinetics plays no
explicit role. Whether or not one agrees with this judgment of relative merits (I
do not) depends to some extent on familiarity with one or the other method. In
any case, Smoluchowski’s paper is an outstanding contribution to physics, even
though the priority of Einstein is beyond question (as Smoluchowski himself
pointed out [S6]).

Smoluchowski treats the suspended particles as hard spheres with a constant
instantaneous velocity given by the equipartition value. He starts out with the
Knudsen case (the mean free path is large compared with the radius a), uses the
kinematics of hard-sphere collisions, calculates the average change in direction per
collision between the suspended particle and a molecule of the liquid, and there-
from finds an expression for {x^) (different from Eq. 5.18 of course). He must
have treated the Knudsen case first since it is kinetically much easier than the
Stokesian case, for which the free path is small compared with a. For the latter
case, he arrived at Eq. 5.18 for (a:^) but with an extra factor 27/64 on the rhs.
This incorrect factor was dropped by Smoluchowski in his later papers.

Six letters between Einstein and Smoluchowski have survived. All show cor-
diality and great mutual respect. The correspondence begins with a note in 1908
by Einstein informing Smoluchowski that he has sent Smoluchowski some reprints
and requesting some reprints of Smoluchowski’s work [El 8]. The next commu-
nication, in November 1911, is again by Einstein and deals with a new subject to
which both men had been drawn: critical opalescence.

It had been known since the 1870s [A2] that the scattering of light passing

102

STATISTICAL PHYSICS

through a gas increases strongly in a neighborhood 0(1 °C) of the critical point.
In 1908 Smoluchowski became the first to ascribe this phenomenon to large den*
sity fluctuations [S7]. He derived the following equation for the mean square par-
ticle number fluctuations

NV{-dp/dV)j

(5.22)

valid up to terms 0{{d^p/d\^)T). For an ideal gas, ? ^ 1/A^, but near the critical
point, where {dp/dV)j = {l^p/dV^)r = 0, the rhs of Eq. 5.22 blows up. These
agglomerations and rarefactions must give rise to corresponding local density fluc-
tuations of the index of refraction from its mean value and thus the coarse-
grainedness of the substance must reveal itself by Tyndall’s phenomenon, with a
very pronounced maximal value at the critical point. In this way, the critical
opalescence explains itself very simply as the result of a phenomenon the existence
of which cannot be denied by anybody accepting the principles of kinetic theory’
[S8].

Thus, Smoluchowski had seen not only the true cause of critical opalescence
but also the connection of this phenomenon with the blueness of the midday sky
and the redness at sunset. Already in 1869 John Tyndall had explained the blue
color of the sky in terms of the scattering of light by dust particles or droplets, the
Tyndall phenomenon’ [T5]. Rayleigh, who worked on this problem ofT and on
for nearly half a century, had concluded that the inhomogeneities needed to
explain this phenomenon were the air molecules themselves. Smoluchowski
believed that the link between critical opalescence and Rayleigh scattering was a
qualitative one. He did not produce a detailed scattering calculation: ‘A precise
calculation . . . would necessitate far-reaching modifications of Rayleigh’s calcu-
lations’ [S7],

Along comes Einstein in 1910 and computes the scattering in a weakly inho-
mogeneous nonabsorptive medium and finds [ElO] (for monochromatic polarized
light)

- 1)V + 2)Y2irV 4-

I — I COS^t/

9N —v{dp/dv)j \ ^ / (47rA)^

(5.23)

where r is the ratio of the scattered to the primary intensity, n the index of refrac-
tion, V the specific volume, X the incident wavelength, the irradiated gas volume,
A the distance of observation, and t? the scattering angle. For an ideal gas (n
1 ),

RT {n'^ - 1 )^

N p

(47rA)‘

cos^t?

(5.24)

‘[Equation 5.24] can also be obtained by summing the radiations ofT the individual
molecules as long as these are taken to be randomly distributed’. Thus Einstein

THE REALITY OF MOLECULES

103

found that the link between critical opalescence and Rayleigh scattering is qmn~
titative and, once again, obtained (for the last time) new methods for measuring
Avogadro’s number. As we read in Perrin’s Les Atomes, these measurements were
made shortly afterward.

Smoluchowski was delighted. In a paper published in 1911, he spx)ke of Ein-
stein’s contribution as ‘a significant advance’ [S9]. However, he had not quite
understood Einstein’s argument. In an appendix to his 1911 paper Smoluchowski
mentioned that the blue of the sky is due to two factors: scattering off molecules
and scattering that results from density fluctuations. Einstein objected by letter
[El 9]. There is one and only one cause for scattering: ‘Reileigh [sic] treats a spe-
cial case of our problem, and the agreement between his final formula and my
own is no accident.’ Shortly thereafter, Smoluchowski replied; ‘You are completely
right’ [SlOj.

Smoluchowski’s last contribution to this problem was experimental: he wanted
to reproduce the blue of the sky in a terrestrial experiment. Preliminary results
looked promising [Sll], and he announced that more detailed experiments were
in progress. He did not live to complete them.*

After Smoluchowski’s death, Sommerfeld [SI 2] and Einstein [El 6] wrote obit-
uaries in praise of a good man and a great scientist. Einstein called him an inge-
nious man of research and a noble and subtle human being.

Finally:

Einstein’s pap)er on critical opalescence and the blue of the sky was written in
October 1910. It was submitted from Zurich, where he was an associate professor
at the university. It was his last major paper on classical statistical physics. In
March 1911 he moved to Prague — to become a full professor for the first time —
and began his main attack on general relativity.

Ostwald conceded in 1908. Referring to the experiments on Brownian motion
and those on the electron, he stated that their results ‘entitle even the cautious
scientist to speak of an experimental proof for the atomistic constitution of space-
filled matter’ [03].

Mach died in 1916, unconvinced,**

Perrin received the Nobel prize in 1926 for his work on Brownian motion. Les
Atomes, one of the finest books on physics written in the twentieth century, con-
tains a postmortem, in the classical French style, to the struggles with the reality
of molecules:

*For references to later experimental work on critical opalescence, see, e.g., [C7]. The problems of
the modern theory of critical opalescence are reviewed in (M9].

**Stefan Meyer recalled Mach’s reaction upon being shown, in Vienna, the scintillations produced
by alpha particles: ‘Now I believe in atoms’ [MlOl. Mach’s text on optics, written after he left
Vienna, shows that this belief did not last, however [MU].

104

STATISTICAL PHYSICS

La theorie atomique a iriomphe. Nombreux encore naguere, ses adversaires
enfm conquis renoncent Tun apres I’autre aux defiances qui longtemps fureni
legitimes et sans doute utiles.**

References

Al. A. Avogadro, J. de Phys 73, 58 (1811); Alembic Reprints, No 4. Livingstone,
Edinburgh, 1961.

A2. M. Avenarius, Ann. Phys Chem. 151, 306 (1874)

Bl. Quoted in The Atomic Debates (W. H. Brock, Ed), p. 8 Leicester University
Press, Leicester, 1967.

B2. Quoted by W. H. Brock and M. Knight, Isis 56, 5 (1965).

B3. D Hydrodynamica Dulsecker, Strassbourg, 1738 German translation

by K. Flierl, published by Forschungsinstilul fur die Gesch d. Naturw und l>ch-
nik, Series C, No. la, 1965

B4. S. G. Brush, The Kind oj Motion IVe Call Heat, Vol. 1, Chap 1 North Holland,
Amsterdam, 1976

B5. R. Brown, Phil. Mag. 4, 161 (1828), see also, Phil Mag 6, 161 (1829)

B6. G. K. Batchelor and J T. Green, J. Fluid Mech. 56, 401 (1972)

B7. , J. Fluid Mech 83, 97 (1977).

B8. S. G. Brush, (B41, Vol 2, Chap 15

B9. G. K. Batchelor, J Fluid Mech 74, 1 (1976)

Cl. S. Cannizzaro, Alembic Reprints, No 18, Livingstone, Edinburgh, 1961
C2. R. Clausius, AdP 10, 353 (1857).

C3. M. Curie, Rev Scientifique 14, 65 (1900)

C4. E. Cohen, Naturw 3, 1 18 (1915)

C5. T. Cawkell and E. Garfield, in Einstein, the First Hundred Years (M Goldsmith,
A. McKay, and J. Woudhuysen, Eds ), p 31 Pergamon Press, London, 1980
C6. G. Cantoni, N Cimento 27, 156 (1867).

C7. B. ChuandJ. S Lin, / Chem Phys 53, 4454 (1970)

Dl. J. Dalton, New System of Chemical Philosophy Bickerstaff, London, Vol 1, Pan
1; 1808; Vol. 1, Part 2. 1810; Vol. 2 1827.

D2. , [Dl], Vol. 1, Part 2, Appendix

D3. R. D. Deslaties, Ann. Rev. Phys. Chem. 31, 435 (1980)

D4. R. K. Dewan and V. A. Bloomfield, J. Dairy Set. 56, 66 (1973).

D5. J. Delsaulx, quoted in T. Svedberg, Die Existenz der Molekiile, p. 91. Akadem-
isches Verlag, Leipzig, 1912.

El. P. Ehrenfest, Collected Scientific Papers (M. J. Klein, Ed ), p 364. North Hol-
land, Amsterdam, 1959.

E2. A. Einstein, AdP 17, 549 (1905).

E3. , Eine neue Bestimmung der Molekiildimensumen. Wyss, Bern, 1905

E4. , letter to the Dekan der II. Sektion der philosophischen Fakultat der Uni-

versitat Zurich, July 20, 1905.

••The atomic theory has triumphed. Until recently still numerous, its adversaries, at last overcome,
now renounce one after another their misgivings, which were, for so long, both legitimate and
undeniably useful

THE REALITY OF MOLECULES

105

E5. , 19, 289 (1906)

E6 , in Kultur der Gegenwart (E Lecher, Ed.). Teubner, Leipzig, 1915 (2nd

edn., 1925).

E7. , AdPU, 591 (1911).

E8. , AdP\% 371 (1906).

E9. , AdP22, 569 (1907)

ElO. , AdP'i'^, 1275 (1910)

Ell. , Z Elektrochem 13,41 (1907).

E12 , / Elektrochem 14,235 (1908)

E13 , letter to J Perrin, January 12, 191 1.

E14. , Knlloidzeitschr27, 137 (1920).

El 5. , letter to J Perrin, November 11, 1909

E16 — , Naturw 5, 737 (1917)

E17. , /IriP 14, 354 (1904)

E18. , letter to M. v Smoluchowski, June 11, 1908

E19 , letter to M v Smoluchowski, November 27, 1911

FI R Fiirth, Ed , LJntersuchungen uber die I'heorie der Brownschen Bewegung.
Akademische Verlags Gesellschaft, Leipzig, 1922

F2 , Investigations on the Brownian Movement (A D Cowper, Tran )

Methuen, London, 1926
F3 , Z. Phys 2, 244 (1922)

01 J L Gay-Lussac, Mem Soc d'Arceuil 2, 207 (1809), Alembic Reprint, No. 4,
Livingstone, Edinburgh, 1961
G2. L G Gouy, J. de Phys. 7, 561 (1888)

HI. J. H van ’t Hoff, Anh. AVer/, des Sci. Exactes et Nat. 20, 239 (1886), Alembic
Reprint, No 19, Livingstone, Edinburgh, 1961
J1 S Jahn, Rad Elektr 6,229 (1909)

Kl. H Kogan, The Great Emyclopedia Britannica University of Chicago Press, Chi-
cago, 1958

LI J Loschmidt, Wiener Ber 52,-395 (1866)

L2 C. Lanezos, 'The Einstein Decade, p 140 Academic Press, New York, 1974
L3 P. Langevm, C R Ac Set Pans 146, 530 (1908).

Ml Cf. C de Milt, Chymia 1, 153 (1948)

M2 E. von Meyer, J Prakt Chem 83, 182 (1911)

M3. D. Mendeleev, 7'he principles of chemistry, Vol 1, p 315 Translated from the
5th Russian edn by G Kamensky Greenaway, London, 1891
M4. J C Maxwell, Collected Works, Vol 2, pp 376-7 Dover, New York.

M5. E Mach, Popular Scientific Lectures, p. 207. Open Court, Chicago, 1910.

M6 J. C Maxwell, [M4], Vol. 2, p 361

M7. , 'Theory of Heat, Chap. 22 Longmans, Green and Co, London, 1872.

Reprinted by Greenwood Press, Westport, Conn.

M8. E W Muller, Phys Rev. 102, 624 (1956);/ Appl Phys 27, 474 (1956); 28, 1
(1957); Sci. Amer , June 1957, p 113.

M9. A. MUnster, Handhuch der Physik (S. Flugge, Ed.), Vol. 13, p. 71. Springer,
Berlin, 1962.

MlO. S. Meyer, Wiener Ber 159, 1 (1950)

Mil. E. Mach, The Principles of Physical Optics, preface. Methuen, London, 1926.
Nl. M. J. Nye, Molecular Reality, Elsevier, New York, 1972.

106 STATISTICAL PHYSICS

N2. ,[Nll,p.4.

N3. Nobel Lectures in Chemistry, p. 3. Elsevier, New York, 1966.

N4. M. J. Nye, [Nl], pp. 9-13 and 21-9.

01. W. Ostwald, Verh. Ges. Deutsch. Naturf. Arzte 1, 155 (1895); French translation:
Rev. Gen. Sci. 6, 956 (1895).

02. L. S. Ornstein, Versl. K. Ak. Amsterdam 26, 1005 (1917); Proc. K. Ak. Amster-
dam 21, 96(1919).

03. W. Ostwald, Grundriss der Physikaltschen Chemie, introduction. Grossbothen,
1908.

PI. W. Prout, Ann. Phil. 6, 321 (1815).

P2. , Ann. Phil. 7, 111 (1816); Alembic Reprints, No. 20. Gurney and Jackson,

London, 1932.

P3. M. Planck, AdP 19, 358 (1883).

P4. W. PfefTcr, Osmotische Untersuchungen. Engelmann, Leipzig, 1877.

P5. H. Poincare in Rapports du Congres International de Physique (C. Guillaume
and L. Poincare, Eds.), Vol. 1, p. 27. Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1900.

P6. H. Poincare in The Foundations of Science, p. 305. Scientific Press, New York,
1913.

P7. J. Perrin, Ann. Chim. Phys. 18, 1 (1909).

P8. , Brownian Movement and Molecular Reality (F. Soddy, Tran.). Taylor and

Francis, London, 1910.

P9. , Les Atomes, 4th edn. Librairic Alcan, Paris, 1914.

PIO. , Atoms (D. L. Hammick, Tran.). Van Nostrand, New York, 1916.

Pll. , Oeuvres Scientifiques, CNRS, Paris, 1950.

Rl. Lord Rayleigh, Phil. Mag. 30, 456 (1890).

R2. A. W. Rucker, J. Chem. Soc. (London) 53, 222 (1888).

R3, H. R. Robinson, Proc. Phys. Soc. (London) 55, 161 (1943).

R4. M. Reiner, Deformation, Strain and Flow. Lewis, London, 1949.

R5. R. Rutgers, Rheol. Acta 2, 202, 305 (1965).

R6. W. C. Roentgen, letter to A. Einstein, September 18, 1906.

51. A. Sommcrfeld, Wiener Chem. Zeitung 47, 25 (1944).

52. Se, p. 112.

S2a. W. Sutherland, Phil. Mag. 9, 781 (1905).

53. M. von Smoluchowski, AdP 756 (1906).

54. L. Szilard, Z. Phys. 53, 840 (1929). Reprinted in The Collected Works of Leo
Szilard (B. T. Feld and G. W. Szilard, Eds.), p. 103. MIT Press, Cambridge,
Mass., 1972.

55. M. von Smoluchowski, Boltzmann Festschrift, p. 627. Barth, Leipzig, 1904.

56. , letter to J. Perrin, undated; quoted in [T4), p. 161.

57. , i4</P25,205 (1908).

58. , Phil. Mag. 23, 165 (1912).

59. , Bull. Ac. Sci. Cracovie, Classe Sci. Math. Nat., 1911, p. 493.

510. , letter to A. Einstein, December 12, 1911.

511. , Bull. Ac. Sci. Cracovie, Classe Sci. Math. Nat. 1916, p. 218.

512. A. Sommerfcld, Phys. Zeitschr. 18, 534 (1917).

Tl. W. Thomson, Nature 1, 551 (1870).

T2. C. Trucsdcll, Arch. Hist. Ex. Sci. 15, 1 (1976).

THE REALITY OF MOLECULES

107

T3. J. J. Thomson, Phil Mag. 48, 565 (1899)

T4. A. Teske, Marian Smoluchowski, Leben unci Werk. Polish Academy of Sciences,
Warsaw, 1977.

T5. J. Tyndall, Phil Mag. 37, 384 (1869); 38, 156 (1869).

Wl. A. W. Williamson, J. Chem. Soc. (London) 22, 328 (1869).

W2. Quoted by L. P. Williams, Contemp. Phys. 2, 93 (1960).

W3. J. D. van der Waals, Over de Continuiteit van den Gas-en Vloeistoftoestand. Syth-
olT, Leiden, 1873.

W4. N. Wax (Ed.), Selected Papers on Noise and Stochastic Processes Dover, New
York, 1954.

Yl. T. Young, Miscellaneous Works. Murray, London, 1855. Reprinted by Johnson
Reprint, New York, 1972, Vol. 9, p. 461.

Y2. Y. I. Yalamov, L. Y. Vasiljeva, and E. R Schukin, J. Coll. Interface Set. 62, 503
(1977).

Ill

RELATIVITY, THE SPECIAL THEORY

‘ Subtle is the Lord . . . ’

6a. The Michelson- Motley Experiment

Maxwell’s article Ether, written for the ninth edition of the Encyclopedia Bntan-
nica [Ml], begins with an enumeration of the ‘high metaphysical . . . [and] mun-
dane uses to be fulfilled by aethers’ and with the barely veiled criticism that, even
for scientific purposes only, ‘all space had been filled three or four times over with
aethers.’ This contribution by Maxwell is an important document for numerous
reasons. To mention but three, it shows us that, like his contemporaries, Maxwell
was deeply convinced of the reality of some sort of aether: ‘There can be no doubt
that the interplanetary and interstellar spaces are not empty but are occupied by
a material substance or body, which is certainly the largest, and probably the most
uniform, body of which we have any knowledge’; it tells us of an unsuccessful
attempt by Maxwell himself to perform a terrestrial optical experiment aimed at
detecting the influence of an aether drag on the earth’s motion; and it informs us
of his opinion that effects of the second order in vfc {v = velocity of the earth
relative to the aether, c = velocity of light) are too small to be detectable. This
last comment was prompted by his observation that ‘all methods ... by which it
is practicable to determine the velocity of light from terrestrial experiments
depend on the measurement of the time required for the double journey from
one station to the other and back again,’ leading to an effea at most of

o{(v/cy) = 0 ( 10 -*).

However, Maxwell still hoped that first-order effects might be astronomically
observable. The example he gave was the determination of the velocity of light
from the eclipses of Jupiter’s satellites when Jupiter is seen from the earth at
nearly opposite points of the ecliptic. If one defines the aether* in the sense of
Maxwell, or, which is the same thing, in the sense of Augustin Jean Fresnel — a
medium in a state of absolute rest relative to the fixed stars, in which light is
propagated and through which the earth moves as if it were transparent to it —
then one readily sees that the Jupiter effect, if it exists at all, is of first order in
the velocity of the solar system relative to this aether.

♦For a review of aether theories and aether models, see especially [LI] and [SI]. Some speak of
aether, others of ether. 1 prefer the former. In quotations 1 follow the predilections of the original
authors, however.

Ill

112

RELATIVITY, THE SPECIAL THEORY

Maxwell requested and received data on the Jovian system from David Peck
Todd, Director of the Nautical Almanac Office in Washington, D.C. On March
19, 1879, Maxwell sent a letter of thanks in which he referred Todd to his ency-
clopedia article and in particular reiterated his remark on the second-order nature
of terrestrial experiments. This letter (not reproduced in his collected papers) was
written when Maxwell had less than eight months to live and Einstein was five
days old. After Maxwell’s death, the letter was forwarded to the secretary of the
Royal Society, who saw to its publication in the January 29, 1880, issue of Nature
(M2).

A year and a half later, in August 1881, there appeared an article in an issue
of the American Journal of Science, authored by Albert A. (for Abraham)
Michelson, Master, U.S. Navy [M3]. Michelson, then on leave from the Navy
and doing post-graduate work in Helmholtz’s laboratory in Berlin, had read
Maxwell’s 1879 letter. Being already an acknowledged expert on measurements
of the velocity of light (he had by then published three papers on the subject [L2]),
he had concluded that Maxwell had underrated the accuracy with which terres-
trial experiments could be performed. The instrument he designed in Berlin in
order to measure Maxwell’s second-order effect is known as the Michelson inter-
ferometer. In order not to be bothered by urban vibrations, Michelson performed
his experiments at the astrophysical observatory in nearby Potsdam. The method
he used was to compare the times it takes for light to travel the same distance
either parallel or transversely to the earth’s motion relative to the aether. In his
arrangement a stationary aether would yield a time difference corresponding to
about an extra 1 /25 of a wavelength of yellow light traveling in the parallel direc-
tion, an effect that can be detected by letting the transverse and parallel beams
interfere. For easily accessible details of the experiment 1 refer the reader to text-
books* and state only Michelson’s conclusion- there was no evidence for an aether
wind. ‘The result of the hypothesis of a stationary aether is thus shown to be
incorrect, and the necessary conclusion follows that the hypothesis is erroneous,’

(M3).

Early in 1887 Michelson wrote to Rayleigh** that he was ‘discouraged at the
slight attention the work received’ [M4], a statement which perhaps was Justified
if one counts the number of those who look note, but not if one considers their
eminence. Kelvin and Rayleigh, both of whom Michelson had met at Johns Hop-
kins University in 1884 [S3] certainly paid attention. So did Loreniz, who found
an error in Michelson’s theory of the experiment [L3| and who was dubious about
the interpretation of the results [L4]. Lorentz’s misgivings and Rayleigh’s urgings
contributed to Michelson’s decision — he was now at the Case Sch(X)l of Applied
Science in Cleveland— to repeat his experiment, this time in collaboration with
Edward Williams Morley, a chemist from next-door Western Reserve University.

•Scc,c.g.,(Pll.

•*For details of the Michelson -Rayleigh correspondence, see especially (82] and [HI j.

‘SUBTLE IS THE LORD’

113

Proceeding along the same general lines used in the Potsdam experiments, they
built a new interferometer. Great care was taken to minimize perturbative influ-
ences. In August 1887, Michelson wrote to Rayleigh that again a null effect had
been found [M5]. The paper on the Michelson -Morley experiment came out the
following November |M6]. Understandably, the negative outcome of this experi-
ment was initially a disappointment, not only to its authors, but also to Kelvin,
Rayleigh, and Lorentz.

However, more important, the experimental result was accepted. There had to
be a flaw in the theory. In 1892 Lorentz queried Rayleigh: ‘Can there be some
point in the theory of Mr Michelson’s experiment which had as yet been over-
looked^’ [L5]. In a lecture before the Royal Institution on April 27, 1900, Kelvin
referred to the experiment as ‘carried out with most searching care to secure a
trustworthy result’ and characterized its outcome as a nineteenth century cloud
over the dynamic theory of light [Kl|. In 1904 he wrote in the preface to his
Baltimore lectures. ‘Michelson and Morley have by their great experimental work
on the motion of the ether relatively to the earth raised the one and only serious
objection against our dynamical explanations. . . .’ [K2].

In later years, Michelson repeated this experiment several times, for the last
time in 1929 [M7]. Others did likewise, notably Dayton Clarence Miller, at one
time a junior colleague of Michelson’s at Case In 1904, Morley and Miller were
the first to do a hilltop experiment- ‘Some have thought that [the Michelson -Mor-
ley] experiment only proves that the ether in a certain basement room is carried
along with it. We desire therefore to place the apparatus on a hill to see if an
effect can there be detected’ [M8] * .\rticles in 1933 [M9] and 1955 [S4] give
many technical and historical details of these experiments No one has done more
to unearth their history than Robert S. Shankland, whose papers are quoted
extensively in this section. For the present purpses, there is no need to discuss
these later developments, except for one interlude which directly involved Einstein.

On April 2, 1921, Einstein arrived for the first time in the Unit-d States, for
a two-month visit. In May, he gave four lectures on relativity theory at Princeton
University [Elj. While he was there, word reached Princeton that Miller had
found a nonzero aether drift during preliminary experiments performed (on April
8-21 [S4]) at Mount Wilson observatory. Upn hearing this rumor, Einstein
commented: ‘Raffmiert ist der Herr Gott, aber boshaft ist er nicht,’ Subtle is the
Lord, but malicious He is not. Nevertheless, on May 25, 1921, shortly before his
departure from the United States, Einstein paid a visit to Miller in Cleveland,
where they talked matters over [S5].

There are two pstscripts to this story. One concerns transitory events. On April
28, 1925, Miller read a paper before the National Academy of Sciences in Wash-
ington, D.C., in which he reprted that an aether drift had definitely been estab-

* Michelson had jx)inled out earlier that perhaps the aether might be trapped in the basements in
which he had done his experiments lM4l

114

RELATIVITY, THE SPECIAL THEORY

lished [MIO]. Later that year, he made the same claim in his retiring address in
Kansas City as president of the American Physical Society [Mil]. I'he outcome
of all this was that Miller received a thousand dollar prize for his Kansas City
paper from the American Association for the Advancement of Science [L6] — pre-
sumably in part an expression of the resistance to relativity which could still be
found in some quarters [Bl] — while Einstein got flooded with telegrams and let-
ters asking him to comment. The latter’s reactions to the commotion are best seen
from a remark he made in passing in a letter to Besso: ‘I have not for a moment
taken [Miller’s results] seriously’ [E2].* As to present times, quantum field theory
has drastically changed our perceptions of the vacuum, but that has nothing to do
with the aether of the nineteenth century and earlier, which is gone for good.*’"
The second postscript to the Miller episode concerns a lasting event. Oswald
Veblen, a professor of mathematics at Princeton, had overheard Einstein’s com-
ment about the subtlety of the Lord. In 1930 Veblen wrote to Einstein, asking his
permission to have this statement chiseled in the stone frame of the fireplace in the
common room of Fine Hall, the newly constructed mathematics building at the
university [VI]. Einstein consented.! The mathematics department has since
moved to new quarters, but the inscription in stone has remained in its original
place. Room 202 in what once was Fine Hall.

Let us now move back to the times when Einstein was still virtually unknown
and ask how Michelson reacted to Einstein’s special theory of relativity and what
influence the Michelson -Morley experiment had on Einstein’s formulation of
\l\ \%5.

The answer lo ihe hrsi quesUon \s s\mp\e. MkheVson, a YnsUumen-

tation and experimentation, never felt comfortable with the special theory. He was
the first American scientist to receive a Nobel prize, in 1907. The absence of any
mention of the aether wind experiments in his citation^ is not surprising. Rela-
tivity was young; even fifteen years later, relativity was not mentioned in Ein-
stein’s citation. It is more interesting that Michelson himself did not mention these
experiments in his acceptance speech [Nl] — not quite like Einstein, who
responded to the award given him in 1922 for the photoelectric effect by delivering
a lecture on relativity [E4]. Truly revealing, however, is Michelson’s verdict on
relativity given in 1927 in his book Studies in Optics [Ml 2]. He noted that the

♦In 1927 Einstein remarked that the positive effect found by Miller could be caused by liny tem-
perature differences in the experimental equipment lE2a).

••In 1951 Dirac briefly considered a return to the aether [Dlj.

+ln his reply to Veblen, Einstein gave the following interpretation of his statement ‘Die Natur
verbirgt ihr Geheimnis durch die Erhabcnhcit ihres Wesens, aber nicht durch List, Nature hides
its secret because of its essential loftiness, but not by means of ruse [E3]. In June 1966 Helen Dukas
prepared a memorandum about this course of events [D2].

^The ciution reads ‘For his optical precision instruments and the spectroscopical and metrological
investigations carried out with their aid’ [Nl].

‘subtle is the lord’

”5

theory of relativity ‘must be accorded a generous acceptance’ and gave a clear
expose of Lorentz transformations and their consequences for the Michelson-
Morley experiment and for the experiment of Armand Hippolyte Louis Fizeau
on the velocity of light in streaming water. Then follows his summation: ‘The
existence of an ether appears to be inconsistent with the theory. . . . But without
a medium how can the propagation of light waves be explained? . . . How explain
the constancy of propagation, the fundamental assumption (at least of the
restricted theory) if there be no medium?’

This is the lament not of a single individual but of an era, though it was an era
largely gone when Michelson’s book came out. Michelson’s writings are the per-
fect illustration of the two main themes to be developed in this and the next two
chapters. The first one is that in the early days it was easier to understand the
mathematics of special relativity than the physics. The second one is that it was
not a simple matter to assimilate a new kinematics as a lasting substitute for the
old aether dynamics.

Let us turn to the influence of the Michelson-Morley experiment on Einstein’s
initial relativity paper (E5]. The importance of this question goes far beyond the
minor issue of whether Einstein should have added a f(X)tnote at some place or
other. Rather, its answer will help us to gain essential insights into Einstein’s
thinking and will prepare us for a subsequent discussion of the basic differences
in the approaches of Einstein, Lorentz, and Poincare.

Michelson is mentioned neither in the first nor in any of Einstein’s later
research papers on special relativity. One also looks in vain for his name in Ein-
sle'in’s autobiographical sketch of 1^)4^ \Ei6L in which the author describes his
scientific evolution and mentums a number of scientists who did influence him.
None of this should be construed to mean that Einstein at any time underrated
the importance of the experiment In 1907 Einstein was the first to write a review
article on relativity [E7], the first paper in which he went to the trouble of giving
a number of detailed references. Michelson and Morley are mentioned in that
review, in a semipopular article Einstein wrote in 1915 [£8], again in the Prince-
ton lectures of 1921 [El ], and in the book The Meaning of Relativity [E9] (which
grew out of the Princeton lectures), where Einstein called the Michelson-Morley
experiment the most important one of all the null experiments on the aether drift.

However, neither in the research papers nor in these four reviews does Einstein
ever make clear whether before 1905 he knew of the Michelson-Morley experi-
ment. Correspondence is of no help either. I have come across only one letter,
written in 1923, by Michelson to Einstein [Ml 3] and none by Einstein to
Michelson. In that letter, Michelson, then head of the physics department at the
University of Chicago, offers Einstein a professorship at Chicago. No scientific
matters are mentioned. The two men finally met in Pasadena. There was great
warmth and respect between them, as Helen Dukas (who was with the Einsteins
in California) told me. On January 15, 1931, at a dinner given in Einstein’s honor
at the Atheneum of Cal Tech, Einstein publicly addressed Michelson in person

110

RELATIVITY, THE SPECIAL THEORY

for the first and last time: ‘I have come among men who for many years have been
true comrades with me in my labors. You, my honored Dr Michelson, began with
this work when I was only a little youngster, hardly three feet high. It was you
who led the physicists into new paths, and through your marvelous experimental
work paved the way for the development of the theory of relativity. You uncovered
an insidious defect in the ether theory of light, as it then existed, and stimulated
the ideas of H. A. Lorentz and FitzGerald out of which the special theory of
relativity developed’ [ElO]. One would think that Einstein might have associated
himself explicitly with Lorentz and FitzGerald had he believed that the occasion
warranted it. He was worldly enough to know that this would be considered an
additional compliment to Michelson rather than a lack of modesty.

Michelson was very ill at the time of that festive dinner and died four months
later. On July 17, 1931, Einstein, back in Berlin, gave a speech in Michelson’s
memory before the Physikalische Gesellschaft of Berlin [Ell). The talk ended
with a fine anecdote. In Pasadena, Einstein had asked Michelson why he had
spent so much effort on high-precision measurements of the light velocity.
Michelson had replied, ‘Weil es mir Spass macht,’ Because I think it is fun Ein-
stein’s main remark about the Michelson -Morley experiment was, ‘Its negative
outcome has much increased the faith in the validity of the general theory of rel-
ativity.’ Even on this most natural of occasions, one does not find an acknowl-
edgement of a direct influence of Michelson’s work on his own development.

Nevertheless, the answers to both questions — did Einstein know of Michelson’s
work before 1905? did it influence his creation of the special theory of
relativity? — are, yes, unquestionably. We know this from di.scussions between
Shankland and Einstein in the 1950s and from an address entitled ‘How I Created
the Relativity Theory’ given by Einstein on December 14, 1922, at Kyoto Uni-
versity (and referred to in what follows as the Kyoto address). Let us first note
two statements made by Einstein to Shankland, recorded by Shankland s(K)n after
they were made, and published by him some time later [Sb], as well as part of a
letter which Einstein wrote to Shankland [S7].*

a) Discussion on February 4, 1950. ‘When I asked him how he had learned of
the Michelson -Morley experiment, he told me that he had become aware of it
through the writings of H. A. Lorentz, but only after 1905 [S. ’s italics) had it
come to his attention! “Otherwise,” he said, “I would have mentioned it in my
paper.” He continued to say that experimental results which had influenced him
most were the observations on stellar aberration and Fizeau’s measurements on
the speed of light in moving water. “They were enough,” he said’ [S6)

b) Discussion on October 24, 1952. ‘I asked Professor Einstein when he had
first heard of Michelson and his experiment. He replied, “This is not so easy, I

•This letter, written at Shankland’s request, was read before the Cleveland Physics Society on the
occasion of the centenary of Michelson’s birth.

‘subtle is the lord’

117

am not sure when I first heard of the Michelson experiment. I was not conscious
that it had influenced me directly during the seven years that relativity had been
my life. I guess I just took it for granted that it was true.” However, Einstein said
that in the years 1905-1909, he thought a great deal about Michelson’s result, in
his discussion with Lorentz and others in his thinking about general relativity. He
then realized (so he told me) that he had also been conscious of Michelson’s result
before 1905 partly through his reading of the papers of Lorentz and more because
he had simply assumed this result of Michelson to be true’ [S6].

c) December 1952, letter by Einstein to Shankland. ‘The influence of the crucial
Michelson -Morley experiment ufX)n my own efforts has been rather indirect. I
learned of it through H. A. Lorentz’s decisive investigation of the electrodynamics
of moving bodies (1895) with which I was acquainted before developing the spe-
cial theory of relativity. Lorentz’s basic assumption of an ether at rest seemed to
me not convincing in itself and also for the reason that it was leading to an inter-
pretation of the Michelson -Morley experiment which seemed to me artificial’
|S71.

What do we learn from these three statements?

First, that memory is fallible. (Einstein was not well in the years 1950-2 and
already knew that he did not have much longer to live ) There is an evident incon-
sistency between Einstein’s words of February 1950 and his two later statements.
It seems sensible to attach more value to the later comments, made upon further
reflection, and therefore to conclude that Einstein did know of Michelson and
Morley before 1905 One also infers that oral history is a profession which should
be pursued with care and caution.

Second, there is Einstein’s opinion that aberration and the Fizeau experiment
were enough for him. 'I'his is the most crucial statement Einstein ever made on
the origins of the special theory of relativity. It shows that the principal argument
which ultimately led him to the special theory was not so much the need to resolve
the conflict between the Michelson-Morley result and the version of aether theory
prevalent in the late nineteenth century but rather, independent of the Michelson-
Morley experiment, the rejection of this nineteenth century edifice as inherently
unconvincing and artificial.

In order to appreciate how radically Einstein departed from the ancestral views
on these issues, it is necessary to compare his position with the ‘decisive investi-
gation’ published by Lorentz in 1895 [L4]. In Section 64 of that paper, we find
the following statement, italicized by its author: 'According to our theory the
motion of the earth will never have any fir^t-order [in v/c\ influence whatever on
experiments with terrestrial light sources.' By Einstein’s own account, he knew
this 1895 memoir in which Lorentz discussed, among other things, both the aber-
ration of light and the Fizeau experiment. Let us briefly recall what was at stake.
Because of the velocity v of the earth, a star which would be at the zenith if the
earth were at rest is actually seen under an angle a with the vertical, where

RELATIVITY, THE SPECIAL THEORY

118

tga = - (6.1)

The concept of an aether at absolute rest, introduced in 1818 by Fresnel in his
celebrated letter to Dominique Francois Jean Arago [FI], served the express pur-
pose of explaining this aberration effect (which would be zero if the aether moved
along with the earth). As to the Fizeau effect, Fresnel had predicted that if a liquid
is moving through a tube with a velocity v relative to the aether and if a light
beam traverses the tube in the same direction, then the net light velocity c' in the
laboratory is given by

( 6 , 2 )

where n is the refractive index of the liquid (assumed a nondispersive medium).
Fresnel derived this result from the assumption that light imparts elastic vibrations
to the aether it traverses. According to him, the presence of the factor 1 — \/n^
(now known as Fresnel’s drag coefficient) expresses the fact that light cannot
acquire the full additional velocity v since it is partially held back by the aether
in the tube. In 1851 Fizeau had sent light from a terrestrial source into a tube
filled with a moving fluid and had found reasonable experimental agreement with
Eq. 6.2 [F2].

Lorentz discussed both effects from the point of view of electromagnetic theory
and gave a dynamic derivation of the Fresnel drag in terms of the polarization
induced in a medium by incident electromagnetic waves.* Throughout this paper
of 1895, the Fresnel aether is postulated explicitly. In rejecting these explanations
of aberration and the Fizeau experiment, Einstein therefore chose to take leave of
a first-order terra firma which had been established by the practitioners, limited
in number but highly eminent and influential, of electromagnetic theory. I shall
leave for the next chapter a discussion of his reasons for doing so. Note, however,
that it was easy to take the Michelson-Morley experiments for granted (as Ein-
stein repeatedly said he did) once a new look at the first-order efferts had led to
the new logic of the special theory of relativity. Note also that this experiment was
discussed at length in Lorentz’s paper of 1895 and that Einstein was familiar with
this paper before 1905!

Finally, there is the Kyoto address. It was given in German and translated into
Japanese by Jun Ishiwara** [II ]. Part of the Japanese text was retranslated into
English [01]. I quote a few lines from this English rendering:

As a student I got acquainted with the unaccountable result of the Michelson
experiment and then realized intuitively that it might be our incorrect thinking

*For a calculation along these lines, see the book by Panofsky and Phillips [P21.

**From 1912 to 1914, Ishiwara studied physics in Germany and in Switzerland. He knew Einstein
personally from those days. He also translated a number of Einstein’s papers into Japanese.

‘subtle is the lord’

119

to take account of the motion of the earth relative to the aether, if we recognized
the experimental result as a fact. In effect, this is the first route that led me to
what is now called the special principles of relativity. ... I had just a chance to
read Lorentz’s 1895 monograph, in which he had succeeded in giving a com-
prehensive solution to problems of electrodynamics within the first approxi-
mation, in other words, as far as the quantities of higher order than the square
of the velocity of a moving body to that of light were neglected. In this connec-
tion I took into consideration Fizeau’s experiment. . . .

In his first paper on relativity, Einstein mentions ‘the failed attempts to detect
a motion of the earth relative to the “light-medium” ’ without specifying what
attempts he had in mind.* Neither Michelson nor Fizeau is mentioned, though he
knew of both. Einstein’s discontent with earlier explanations of first-order effects
may have made the mystery of Michelson and Morley’s second-order null effect
less central to him. Yet this ‘unaccountable result’ did affect his thinking and thus
a new question arises: Why, on the whole, was Einstein so reticent to acknowledge
the influence of Michelson on him? I shall return to this question in Chapter 8.

6b. The Precursors

/. What Einstein Knew. Historical accounts of electromagnetism in the late
nineteenth century almost invariably cite a single phrase written by that excellent
experimental and theoretical physicist, Heinrich Rudolf Hertz: ‘Maxwell’s theory
is Maxwell’s system of equations.’** By itself, this is a witty, eminently quotable,
and meaningless comment on the best that the physics of that period had to offer.
The post-Maxwell, pre- Einstein attitude which eventually became preponderant
was that electrodynamics is Maxwell’s equations plus a specification of the charge
and current densities contained in these equations plus a conjecture on the nature
of the aether.

Maxwell’s own theory placed the field concept in a central position. It did not
abolish the aether, but it did greatly simplify it. No longer was ‘space filled three
or four times over with ethers,’ as Maxwell had complained [Ml]. Rather, ‘many
workers and many thinkers have helped to build up the nineteenth century school
of plenum, one ether for light, heat, electricity, magnetism’, as Kelvin wrote in
1893 [K3]. However, there still were many nineteenth century candidates for this
one aether, some but not all predating Maxwell’s theory. There were the aethers
of Fresnel, Cauchy, Stokes, Neumann, MacGullagh, Kelvin, Planck, and proba-
bly others, distinguished by such properties as degree of homogeneity and com-

*In a thoughtful article on Einstein and the Michelson -Morley experiment, Holton [H2| raised the
possibility that Einstein might have had in mind other null effects known by then, such as the absence
of double refraction (B2, Rl] and the Trouton-Noble experiment ITl].

**Sec the second volume of Hertz’s collected works IH3], which is also available in English trans-
lation [H4].

120

RELATIVITY, THE SPECIAL THEORY

pressibility, and the extent to which the earth dragged the aether along. This
explains largely (though not fully) why there was such a variety of post-Max-
wellian Maxwell theories, the theories of Hertz, Lorentz, Larmor, Wiechert,
Cohn, and probably others.

Hertz was, of course, aware of these options [M14]. After all, he had to choose
his own aether (the one he selected is dragged along by the earth). Indeed, his
dictum referred to earlier reads more fully: ‘Maxwell’s theory is Maxwell’s system
of equations. Every theory which leads to the same system of equations, and there-
fore comprises the same possible phenomena, I would consider as being a form or
special case of Maxwell’s theory.’

The most important question for all these authors of aethers and makers of
Maxwell theories was to find a dynamic understanding of the aberration of light,
of Fresnel drag, and, later, of the Michelson-Morley experiment. In a broad
sense, all these men were precursors of Einstein, who showed that theirs was a
task both impossible and unnecessary. Einstein’s theory is, of course, not just a
Maxwell theory in the sense of Hertz. Rather, Einstein’s resolution of the diffi-
culties besetting the electrodynamics of moving bodies is cast in an all-embracing
framework of a new kinematics. Going beyond Lorentz and Poincare, he based
his theory on the first of the two major re-analyses of the problem of measurement
which mark the break between the nineteenth and the twentieth centuries (the
other one being quantum mechanics).

It is not the purpose of this section on precursors to give a detailed discussion
of the intelligent struggles by all those men named above. Instead I shall mainly
concentrate on Lorentz and Poincare, the precursors of the new kinematics. A
final comparison of the contributions of Einstein, Lorentz, and Poincare will be
deferred until Chapter 8. Nor shall I discuss Lorentz’s finest contribution, his
atomistic interpretation of the Maxwell equations in terms of charges and currents
carried by fundamental particles (which he called charged particles in 1892, ions
in 1895, and, finally, electrons in 1899), even though this work represents such a
major advance in the development of electrodynamics. Rather, I shall confine
myself largely to the evolution and the interpretation of the Lorentz
transformation:

x' = y(x — vt) / = y z' — z /' = 7(/ — vx/c^) (6.3)
7 = (1 — (6.4)

which relates one set of space-time coordinate systems (x',y',z',/') to another,
(x,y,^,/), moving with constant velocity v relative to the first. (For the purpose of
this section, it suffices to consider only relative motion in the x direction.)

The main characters who will make their appearance in what follows are:
Voigt, the first to write down Lorentz transformations; FitzGerald, the first to
propose the contraction hypothesis; Lorentz himself; Larmor, the first to relate the
contraction hypothesis to Lorentz transformations; and Poincare. It should also be
mentioned that before 1900 others had begun to sense that the aether as a material

‘subtle is the lord’

121

medium might perhaps be dispensed with. Thus Paul Drude wrote in 1900: ‘The
conception of an ether absolutely at rest is the most simple and the most natural —
at least if the ether is conceived to be not a substance but merely space endowed
with certain physical properties’ [D3]; and Emil Cohn in 1901, ‘Such a medium
fills every element of our space; it may be a definite ponderable system or also the
vacuum’ [Cl].

Of the many papers on the subject treated in this section, the following in par-
ticular have been of great help to me: Tetu Hirosige on the aether problem [H5],
McCormmach on Hertz [Ml 4], Bork [B3] and Brush [B4| on FitzGerald, and
Miller [Ml 5] on Poincare.

As to Einstein himself, in his first relativity paper he mentions only three phys-
icists by name: Maxwell, Hertz, and Lorentz. As he repeatedly pointed out else-
where, in 1905 he knew Lorentz’s work only up to 1895. It follows — as we shall
see — that in 1905 Einstein did not know of Lorentz transformations. He invented
them himself. Nor did he know at that time those papers by Poincare which deal
in technical detail with relativity issues.

2. Voigt. It was noted in 1887 [V2] by Woldemar Voigt that equations of the
type

□0 = 0

□ .£. + iL + il

df‘ at’

dt^

retain their form if one goes over to the new space-time variables

x' X — vt y' = y/y z' = z/y t' = t — vx/c^

(6.5)

( 6 . 6 )

(6.7)

These are the Lorentz transformations (Eq. 6.3) up to a stale factor. Voigt
announced this result in a theoretical paper devoted to the Doppler principle. As
an application of Eq. 6.7, he gave a derivation of the Doppler shift, but only for
the long-familiar longitudinal effect of order v/c. His new method has remained
standard procedure to this day: he made use of the invariance of the phase of a
propagating plane light wave under Eq. 6.7 [P3], Since the Doppler shift is a
purely kinematic effect (in the relativistic sense), it is irrelevant that Voigt’s argu-
ment is set in the dynamic framework of the long-forgotten elastic theory of light
propagation, according to which light is propagated as a result of oscillations in
an elastic incompressible medium.

Lorentz was familiar with some of Voigt’s work. In 1887 or 1888, the two men
corresponded — about the Michelson-Morley experiment [V3]. However, for a
long time Lorentz seems not to have been aware of the Voigt transformation (Eq.
6.7). Indeed, Lorentz’s Columbia University lectures, given in 1906 and published
in book form in 1909, contain the following comment: ‘In a paper . . . published
in 1887 . . . and which to my regret has escaped my notice all these years, Voigt
has applied to equations of the form [of Eq. 6.5] a transformation equivalent to
[Eq. 6.3]. The idea of the transformations [Eq. 6.3] . . . might therefore have been

122

RELATIVITY, THE SPECIAL THEORY

borrowed from Voigt and the proof that it does not alter the form of the equations
for the free ether is contained in his paper’ [L7]. (Although these lines were writ-
ten after Einstein’s work of 1905, they still contain a reference to the aether. So
does the second edition of Lorentz’s book, published in 1915. 1 shall have more to
say on this subject in Chapter 8.)

At a physics meeting in 1908, Minkowski drew attention to Voigt’s 1887 paper
[M16]. Voigt was present. His response was laconic: ‘ . already then [in 1887]
some results were found which later were obtained from the electromagnetic the-
ory’ [V4].

3. FitzGerald. The collected papers of the Irish physicist George Francis
FitzGerald, edited by his friend Joseph Larmor [L8], show that FitzGerald
belonged to that small and select group of physicists who participated very early
in the further development of Maxwell’s theory. (In 1899, he was awarded a
Royal Medal for his work in optics and electrodynamics by the Royal Society, of
which he was a member.) However, this handsome volume does not contain the
very brief paper for which FitzGerald is best remembered, the one dealing with
the hypothesis of the contraction of moving bodies. This paper appeared in 1 889
in the American journal Science [F3] under the title ‘The Ether and the Earth’s
Atmosphere.’ It reads, in full:

I have read with much interest Messrs. Michclson and Morlcy’s wonderfully
delicate experiment attempting to decide the important question as to how far
the ether is carried along by the earth. Their result seems opposed to other
experiments showing that the ether in the air can be carried along only to an
inappreciable extent. I would suggest that almost the only hypothesis that can
reconcile this opposition is that the length of material bodies changes, according
as they are moving through the ether or across it, by an amount depending on
the square of the ratio of their velocities to that of light. We know that electric
forces are affected by the motion of the electrified bodies relative to the ether,
and it seems a not improbable supposition that the molecular forces are affected
by the motion, and that the size of a body alters consequently. It would be very
important if secular experiments on electrical attractions between permanently
electrified bodies, such as in a very delicate quadrant electrometer, were insti-
tuted in some of the equatorial parts of the earth to observe whether there is
any diurnal and annual variation of attraction — diurnal due to the rotation of
the earth being added and subtracted from its orbital velocity, and annual sim-
ilarly for its orbital velocity and .the motion of the solar system.

Here for the first time appears the proposal of what now is called the Fitz-
Gerald -Lorentz contraaion. The formulation is qualitative and distinctly prerc-
lativistic. Consider the statement *. . . the length of material bodies changes,

according as they arc moving through the aether ’ First of all, there is (of

course) still an aether. Second, the change of length is considered (if I may borrow
a later phrase of Einstein’s) to be objeaively real; it is an absolute change, not a
change relative to an observer at rest. Consider next the statement about the

‘subtle is the lord’

123

molecular forces being affected by the motion. The author clearly has in mind a
dynamic contraction mechanism which presses the molecules together in their
motion through the aether.

FitzGerald’s hypothesis was referred to several times in lectures (later pub-
lished) by Oliver Joseph Lodge [B3]. Larmor, too, properly credited FitzGerald
in the introduction to the latter’s collected works: ‘He [F.] was the first to suggest
. . . that motion through the aether affects the dimensions of solid molecular aggre-
gations’ [L9]. Elsewhere in that same book, we find FitzGerald himself mention-
ing the contraction hypothesis, in 1900. In that year, Larmor’s essay Aether and
Matter [LIO] had come out. In a review of this book, FitzGerald wrote that in the
analysis of the Michelson-Morley experiment ‘he [Larmor] has to assume that
the length of a body depends on whether it is moving lengthwise or sideways
through the ether’ [LI 1], without referring, however, to his own suggestion made
more than ten years earlier!

FitzGerald’s curious silence may perhaps be explained in part by what he once
wrote to his friend Oliver Heaviside: ‘As I am not in the least sensitive to having
made mistakes, I rush out with all sorts of crude notions in hope that they may
set others thinking and lead to some advance’ [F4]. Perhaps he was also held back
by an awareness of those qualities of his which were described by Heaviside soon
after FitzGerald’s death: ‘He had, undoubtedly, the quickest and most original
brain of anybody. That was a great distinction; but it was, I think, a misfortune
as regards his scientific fame. He saw too many openings. His brain was too fertile
and inventive. I think it would have been better for him if he had been a little
stupid— I mean not so quick and versatile but more plodding. He would have
been better appreciated, save by a few’ [02].

Lorentz was one of those few who appeciated FitzGerald the way he was.

4. Lorentz. The first paper by Lorentz relevant to the present discussion is
the one of 1886 — that is, prior to the Michelson-Morley experiment — in which
he criticized Michelson’s theoretical analysis of the 1881 Potsdam experiment
[L3]. The main purpose of Lorentz’s paper was to examine how well Fresnel’s
stationary aether fitted the facts. He therefore reexamined the aberration and
Fizeau effects and noted in particular another achievement (not yet mentioned) of
Michelson and Morley: their repetition of the Fizeau experiment with much
greater accuracy, which bore out Fresnel’s prediction for the drag coefficient in a
much more quantitative way than was known before [M17]. Since at that time
Lorentz had a right to be dubious about the precision of the Potsdam experiment,
he concluded that there was no particular source for worry: ‘It seems doubtful in
my opinion that the hypothesis of Fresnel has been refuted by experiment’ [L3].

We move to 1892, the year in which Lorentz publishes his first paper on his
atomistic electromagnetic theory [LI 2]. The Michelson-Morley experiment has
meanwhile been performed, and Lorentz is now deeply concerned (as was noted
before): ‘This experiment has been puzzling me for a long time, and in the end I
have been able to think of only one means of reconciling it with Fresnel’s theory.

124

RELATIVITY, THE SPECIAL THEORY

It consists in the supposition that the line joining two points of a solid body, if at
first parallel to the direction of the earth’s motion, does not keep the same length
when it is subsequently turned through 90®’ [LI 3]. If this length be / in the latter
position, then, Lorentz notes, Fresnel’s aether hypothesis can be maintained if the
length in the former position I' were

Today we call Eq. 6.8 the FitzGerald- Lorentz contraction up to second order in
v/c. In order to interpret this result, Lorentz assumed that molecular forces, like
electromagnetic forces, ‘act by means of an intervention of the aether’ and that a
contraction effect cannot be excluded on any known experimental

grounds.

These conclusions agree in remarkable detail with FitzGerald’s earlier pro-
posal: save the aether by its dynamic intervention on the action of molecular forces.
In 1892, Lorentz was still unaware of FitzGerald’s earlier paper, however.

The fall of 1894. Lorentz writes to FitzGerald, telling him that he has learned
of the latter’s hypothesis via an 1 893 paper by Lodge, informing FitzGerald that
he had arrived at the same idea in his own paper of 1892, and asking him where
he has published his ideas so that he can refer to them [LI 4]. A few days later,
FitzGerald replies: His paper was sent to Sciencey ‘but I do not know if they ever
published it. ... I am pretty sure that your publication is prior to any of my
printed publications’(!) [F5j. He also expresses his delight at hearing that Lorentz
agrees with him, ‘for I have been rather laughed at for my view over here.’

From that time on, Lorentz used practically every occasion to point out that he
and FitzGerald had independently arrived at the contraction idea. In his memoir
of 1895, he wrote of ‘a hypothesis . . . which has also been arrived at by Mr
FitzGerald, as I found out later’ [LIS]. This paper also marks the beginning of
Lorentz’s road toward the Lorentz transformations, our next subject.

In the paper of 1895, Lorentz proved the following ‘theorem of corresponding
states.’ Consider a distribution of nonmagnetic substances described in a coordi-
nate system x,t at rest relative to the aether. Denote by £, //, 5 , the electric,
magnetic, and electric displacement fields, respectively. 5 = £ + P is the
electric polarization. Consider a second coordinate system x'/ moving with veloc-
ity V relative to the (x^t) system. Then to first order in v/c, there is a correspond-
ing state in the second system in which £', H\ F are the same functions of x'/
as Ey H, P are of x,/, where

x' = X — vt (6.9)

/' = / - 'Lx/c^ (6.10)

E'^E-^vXH/c (6.11)

H' = H -vXE/c (6.12)

F =P

‘subtle is the lord’

125

Like Voigt before him, Lorentz regarded the transformations (Eqs. 6.9 and
6.10) only as a convenient mathematical tool for proving a physical theorem, in
his case that to 0{v/c) terrestrial optical experiments are independent of the
motion of the earth, a result already mentioned in Section 6a. Equation 6.9 was
obviously familiar to Lorentz, but the novel Eq. 6.10 led him to introduce signif-
icant new terminology. He proposed to call t the general time and the local time
[LI 6]. Although he did not say so explicitly, it is evident that to him there was,
so to speak, only one true time: t. At this stage, Lorentz’s explanation for the
absence of any evidence for a stationary aether was hybrid in character: to first
order he had derived the null effects from electrodynamics; to second order he had
to introduce his ad hoc hypothesis expressed by Eq. 6.8.

One last remark on the 1895 paper. It contains another novelty, the assumption
that an ‘ion’ with charge e and velocity v is subject to a force K\

K = e(E -\-w X H/c) (6.13)

the Lorentz force (Lorentz called it the electrische Kraft [L17J).

As has been noted repeatedly, in 1905 Einstein knew of Lorentz’s work only
up to 1895. Thus Einstein was aware of no more and no less than the following:
Lorentz’s concern about the Michelson-Morley experiment, his ‘first-order
Lorentz transformation,’ Eqs. 6.9 and 6.10, his proof of the first-order theorem
for optical phenomena, his need to supplement this proof with the contraction
hypothesis, and, finally, his new postulate of the Lorentz force, Eq. 6.13.

As a conclusion to the contributions of Lorentz prior to 1905, the following
three papers need to be mentioned.

1898. Lorentz discusses the status of his work in a lecture given in Diisseldorf
[LI 8]. It is essentially a summary o( what he had written in 1895.

1899. He gives a ‘simplified version’ of his earlier theory [LI 9]. Five years
later, he characterized this work as follows. ‘It would be more satisfactory if it
were p)ossible to show, by means of certain fundamental assumptions, and without
neglecting terms of one order of magnitude or another, that many electromagnetic
actions are entirely independent of the motion of the system. Some years ago [in
1899] I had already sought to frame a theory of this kind’ [L20]. In 1899 he wrote
down the transformations

x' = €7(x — vt) (6.14)

/ = (y, z' = kz (6.15)

/' = € 7 (/ — ux/c^) (6.16)

which are the Lorentz transformations (Eq. 6.3) up to a scale factor e. He noted
among other things that ‘the dilatations determined by [Eqs. 6.14 and 6.15] are
precisely those which I had to assume in order to explain the experiment of Mr
Michelson’! Thus the reduction of the FitzGerald -Lorentz contraction to a con-

126

RELATIVITY, THE SPECIAL THEORY

sequence of Lorentz transformations* is a product of the nineteenth century.
Lorentz referred to t' defined by Eq. 6.16 as a modified local time. Concerning
the scale factor c, he remarked that it had to have a well-defined value which one
can determine only ‘by a deeper knowledge of the phenomena.’ Note that it is, of
course, not necessary for the interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment
to know what € is. (As for all optical phenomena in free space, one may allow not
only for Lorentz invariance but also for scale invariance, in fact, for conformal
invariance.) In 1899 Lorentz did not examine whether his theorem of correspond-
ing states could be adapted to the transformations represented by Eqs. 6.14-6.16.

•1904. Lorentz finally writes down the transformations (Eqs. 6.3 -6.4) [LZO].
He fixes € to be equal to unity from a discussion of the transformation properties
of the equation of motion of an electron in an external field. This timt he attempts
to prove a theorem of corresponding states (that is, Lorentz covariance) for the
inhomogeneous Maxwell -Lorentz equations. He makes an error in the transfor-
mation equations for velocities ([L20], Eq. 8). As a result, he does not obtain the
covariance beyond the first order in v/c (compare Eqs. 2 and 9 in [L20)).

I shall return to this 1904 paper in the next chapter. However, as far as the
history of relativistic kinematics is concerned, the story of Lorentz as precursor to
Einstein is herewith complete.

5. Larmor, Larmor’s prize-winning essay Aether and Matter [LIO] was
completed in 1898 and came out in 1900. It contains not only the exact transfor-
mations (Eqs. 6.3 and 6.4) but also the proof that one arrives at the FitzGerald-
Lorentz contraction with the help of these transformations [L21]. Larmor was
aware of Lorentz’s paper of 1895 and quoted it at length, but he could not have
known the 1899 paper.

It is true that Larmor’s reasonings are often obscured by his speculations (of no
interest here) about dynamic interrelations between aether and matter. However,
there is no doubt that he gave the Lorentz transformations and the resulting con-
traction argument before Lorentz independently did the same. It is a curious fact
that neither in the correspondence between Larmor and Lorentz** nor in
Lorentz’s papers is there any mention of this contribution by Larmor.

The first time I became aware of Larmor’s work was in the early 1950s, when
Adriaan Fokker told me that it was known in Leiden that Larmor had the Lorentz
transformations before Lorentz, Alas, I never asked Fokker (an ex-student of
Lorentz’s) what Lorentz himself had to say on that subject.

6. Poincare. In 1898 there appeared an utterly remarkable article by Poin-
care entitled ‘La Mesure du Temps’ [P5].t In this paper, the author notes that
'^ive have no direct intuition about the equality of two time intervals. People who

•For the simple mathematics of this reduction, see standard textbooks, e.g., (P4].

••This correspondence is deposited in the Ryksarchief in the Hague. I am grateful to A. Kox for
information related to this correspondence.

+This essay is available in English as Chapter 2 in TTie Value of Science (Pb).

‘subtle is the lord’

127

believe they have this intuition are the dupes of an illusion’ (the italics are Poin-
care’s). He further remarks, ‘It is difficult to separate the qualitative problems of
simultaneity from the quantitative problem of the measurement of time; either one
uses a chronometer, or one takes into account a transmission velocity such as the
one of light, since one cannot measure such a velocity without measuring a time.’
After discussing the inadequacies of earlier definitions of simultaneity, Poincare
concludes, ‘The simultaneity of two events or the order of their succession, as well
as the equality of two time intervals, must be defined in such a way that the state-
ments of the natural laws be as simple as possible. In other words, all rules and
definitions are but the result of an unconscious opportunism.’ These lines read
like the general program for what would be given concrete shape seven years later.
Other comments in this paper indicate that Poincare wrote this article in response
to several other recent publications on the often-debated question of the measure-
ment of time intervals. The new element which Poincare injected into these dis-
cussions was his questioning of the objective meaning of simultaneity.

In 1 898 Poincare did not mention any of the problems in electrodynamics. He
did so on two subsequent occasions, in 1900 and in 1904. The style is again pro-
grammatic. In these works, the aether questions are central. ‘Does the aether
really exist?’ he asked in his opening address to the Paris Congress of 1900 [P7].* **
‘One knows where our belief in the aether stems from. When light is on its way
to us from a far star ... it is no longer on the star and not yet on the earth. It is
necessary that it is somewhere, sustained, so to say, by some material support.’ He
remarked that in the Fizeau experiment ‘one believes one can touch the aether
with one’s fingers.’ Turning to theoretical ideas, he noted that the Lorentz theory
‘is the most satisfactory one we have.”^* However, he considered it a drawback
that the independence of optical phenomena from the motion of the earth should
have separate explanations in first and in second order. ‘One must find one and
the same explanation for one and for the other, and everything leads us to antic-
ipate that this explanation will be valid for higher-order terms as well and that
the cancellation of the [velocity-dependent] terms will be rigorous and absolute.’
His reference to cancellations would seem to indicate that he was thinking about
a conspiracy of dynamic effects.

In 1904 he returned to the same topics, once again in a programmatic way, in
his address to the International Congress of Arts and Science at St. Louis [P9].f
‘What is the aether, how are its molecules arrayed, do they attract or repel each
other?’ He expressed his uncase with the idea of an absolute velocity: ‘If we suc-
ceed in measuring something we will always have the freedom to say that it is not

*This address is available in English as Chapters 9 and 10 in Science and Hypothesis [P8].

** During the period 1895 to 1900, Poincare considered it a flaw of the theory that it did not satisfy
momentum conservation in the Newtonian sense, that is, conservation of momentum for matter only.
He withdrew this objection soon afterward.

f This address is available in English as Chapters 7 to 9 in The Value of Science (P6).

128

RELATIVITY, THE SPECIAL THEORY

the absolute velocity, and if it is not the velocity relative to the aether, it can always
be the velocity relative to a new unknown fluid with which we would fill space.’
He gently chides Lorentz for his accumulation of hypotheses, and then he goes
beyond Lorentz in treating local time as a physical concept. He considers two
observers in uniform relative motion who wish to synchronize their clocks by
means of light signals. 'Clocks regulated in this way will not mark the true time,
rather they mark what one may call the local time' All phenomena seen by one
observer are retarded relative to the other, but they all are retarded equally (Poin-
care points out) and ‘as demanded by the relativity principle [the observer] cannot
know whether he is at rest or in absolute motion.’ Poincare is getting close. But
then he falters: ‘Unfortunately [this reasoning] is not sufficient and complemen-
tary hypotheses are necessary [ my italics] ; one must assume that bodies in motion
suffer a uniform contraction in their direction of motion.’ The reference to com-
plementary hypotheses makes clear that relativity theory had not yet been
discovered.

Poincare concluded this lecture with another of his marvelous visions: ‘Perhaps
we must construct a new mechanics, of which we can only catch a glimpse, ... in
which the velocity of light would become an unpassable limit.’ But, he added, ‘I
hasten to say that we are not yet there and that nothing yet proves that [the old
principles] will not emerge victoriously and intact from this struggle.’

The account of Einstein’s precursors ends here, on a note of indecision. Lorentz
transformations had been written down. Simultaneity had been questioned. The
velocity of light as a limiting velocity had been conjectured. But prior to 1905 there
was no relativity theory. Let us now turn to what Poincare did next, not as a
precursor to Einstein but essentially simultaneously with him.

6c. Poincare in 1905

All three papers Just mentioned are qualitative in character. Poincare, one of the
very few true leaders in mathematics and mathematical physics of his day, knew,
of course, the electromagnetic theory in all its finesses. He had published a book
on optics in 1889 [PIO] and one on electromagnetic theory in 1901 [PI 1 ]. In 1895
he had written a series of papers on Maxwellian theories [PI 2]. From 1897 to
1900 he wrote several articles on the theory of Lorentz [PI 3]. All this work cul-
minated in his two pap)ers completed in 1905. Both bear the same title: ‘Sur la
Dynamique de I’Electron.’ The occurrence of the term dynamics is most signifi-
cant. So is the following sequence of dates:

June 5, 1905. Poincare communicates the first of these two papers to the Aca-
demie des Sciences in Paris [PI 4).

June 30, 1905. Einstein’s first paper on relativity is received by the Annalen
der Physik.

July, 1905. Poincare completes his second paper, which appears in 1906 [PI 5).

The first of the Poincare papers is in essence a summary of the second, much

‘subtle is the lord’

129

longer one. The content of his articles is partly kinematic, partly dynamic. Here
I shall discuss only their kinematic part, leaving the remainder until the next
chapter.

The June paper begins with the remark that neither the aberration of light and
related phenomena nor the work of Michelson reveals any evidence for an absolute
motion of the earth. ‘It seems that this impossibility of demonstrating absolute
motion is a general law of nature.’ Next Poincare refers to the contraction hypoth-
esis and to Lorentz’s paper of 1904 [L20] in which — as he has it — Lorentz had
succeeded in modifying the hypothesis ‘in such a way as to bring it in accordance
with the complete impossibility of determining absolute motion.’ This statement
is not quite correct, since (as was mentioned earlier) Lorentz had not succeeded
in proving the covariance of the inhomogeneous Maxwell -Lorentz equations.
Poincare was to return to this point in July. However, in June he already had the
correct transformation properties of the velocities, the point Lorentz had missed.
‘I have been led to modify and complete [Lorentz’s analysis] in certain points of
detail.’

Poincare then turns to the transformations (Eqs. 6.14-6.16), ‘which I shall
name after Lorentz,’ and continues, ‘The ensemble of all these transformations,
together with the ensemble of all spatial rotations must form a group; but in order
for this to be so it is necessary that* ( = 1; one is thus led to assume that c = 1,
a result which Lorentz had obtained in another way.’

The final topic discussed in this paper concerns gravitation. Following
Lorentz’s dynamic picture, Poincare reasons in a more general and abstract way
that all forces should transform in the same way under Lorentz transformations.
He concludes that therefore Newton’s laws need modification and that there
should exist gravitational waves which propagate with the velocity of light!
Finally, he points out that the resulting corrections to Newton’s law must be
0(v^/c^) and that the precision of astronomical data does not seem to rule out
effects of this order.

The July paper of Poincare gives many more details. Its Section 1, entitled
‘Lorentz Transformation,’ contains the complete proof of covariance of electrody-
namics. ‘It is here that I must point out for the first time a difference with Lorentz’
[PI 6]. Section 4 contains a discussion of ‘a continuous group which we shall call
the Lorentz group.’ Poincare explains his argument for € = 1: starting from Eqs.
6.14-6.16, consider the inverse of these transformations, that is, replace by - z;.
Clearly,

e(v)€(—v) = 1 (6.17)

Moreover, from a rotation of 180° around the y axis it follows that

e{v) = i(—v) (6.18)

1 use the notation of Eqs. 6.14-6.16; Poincare used the symbol / instead of €.

130

RELATIVITY, THE SPECIAL THEORY

SO that

€(y) = 1 (6.19)

Once it is settled that € = 1, the Lorentz transformations have the property that

-f y -h remains unaltered. (6.20)

In showing the group property of Lorentz transformations, Poincare remarked
that the ‘product’ of two transformations (Eq. 6.3), one with velocity t;„ the other
with V 2 i results in another Lorentz transformation with velocity v given by

v\ + Vi

1 + V^Vi!

(6.21)

He did, of course, not know that a few weeks earlier someone else had inde-
pendently noted the group properties of Lorentz transformations and had derived
Eqs. 6.19-6.21 by an almost identical argument.

I shall return later to the efforts by Lorentz in 1904 and by Poincare in 1905
to give a theory of the electron. However, I believe I have presented at this point
all the evidence that bears on the role of Lorentz and of Poincare in the develop-
ment of relativity theory. I shall now let their case rest until the discussion of
Einstein’s first two papers on the subject has been completed. Thereafter an
attempt will be made to compare the contributions of all three men.

As a last step preparatory to the account of Einstein’s discovery of relativity, I
should like to mention what little we know about his thoughts on the subject prior
to 1905.

6d. Einstein before 1905

Einstein’s curiosity in electromagnetic theory goes back at least to his Pavia days
of 1895, which followed his escape from the hated high school in Munich. The
following brief and rather disconnected remarks bear on his interest in electro-
dynamics during the decade preceding his creation of the special theory of
relativity.

7. The Pavia Essay* In 1895 Einstein sent a manuscript entitled (Jber die
Untersuchung des Atherzustandes im magnetischen Felde (On the Examination
of the State of the Aether in a Magnetic Field) to his uncle Caesar Koch in Bel-
gium. This paper — which Einstein never published — was accompanied by a cov-
ering letter in which he wrote: ‘[The manuscript) deals with a very special theme
and is . . . rather naive and incomplete, as can be expected from a young fellow.’

•In 1950, Einstein dated this manuscript to be from 1894 or 1895. It was sent to Caesar Koch in
1895, since in its covering letter Einstein tells of his intent to go to the ETH and adds, in the next
letter I shall write you what may come of this.’ Both the essay and its covering letter were reproduced
in a paper by Mehra [M18].

'subtle is the lord’ 131

In the opening lines of the essay, he asks the reader’s forbearance: ‘Since I com-
pletely lacked the material for penetrating deeper into the subject, I beg that this
circumstance will not be interpreted as superficiality.’

The main questions raised in the essay are, How does a magnetic field, gen-
erated when a current is turned on, affect the surrounding aether? How, in turn,
does this magnetic field affect the current itself? Evidently Einstein believed in an
aether at that time. He regarded it as an elastic medium and wondered in partic-
ular how ‘the three components of elasticity act on the velocity of an aether wave’
which is generated when the current is turned on. He came to the following main
conclusion. ‘Above all, it ought to be [experimentally) shown that there exists a
passive resistance to the electric current’s ability for generating a magnetic field;
[this resistance] is proportional to the length of the wire and independent of the
cross section and the material of the conductor.’ Thus, the young Einstein discov-
ered independently the qualitative properties of self-induction (a term he did not
use). It seems clear that he was not yet familiar with earlier work on this phe-
nomenon. In his paper he mentions ‘the wonderful experiments of Hertz.’ I do
not know how he became aware of Hertz’s work. At any rate, it is evident that at
that time he already knew that light is an electromagnetic phenomenon but did
not yet know Maxwell’s papers.

2. The Aarau Question, In his final autobiographical note [El 2], Einstein
wrote, ‘During that year [sometime between October 1895 and the early fall of
1896] in Aarau the question came to me: If one runs after a light wave with [a
velocity equal to the] light velocity, then one would encounter a time-independent
wavefield. However, something like that does not seem to exist! This was the first
Juvenile thought experiment which has to do with the special theory of relativity’
(and he added, ‘Invention is not the product of logical thought, even though the
final product is tied to a logical structure.’). Also, in his more extensive autobio-
graphical notes, published in 1949, Einstein remarked that ‘after ten years of
reflection such a principle [special relativity] resulted from [this] paradox upon
which I had already hit at the age of sixteen’ [E6].

3. The ETH Student, Since Rudolf Kayser, Einstein’s son-in-law and biog-
rapher, was himself not a physicist, it is hard to believe that the following lines
from the biography could have come from anyone but Einstein himself. ‘He
encountered at once, in his second year of college [ 1897-8], the problem of light,
ether and the earth’s movement. This problem never left him. He wanted to con-
struct an apparatus which would accurately measure the earth’s movement against
the ether. That his intention was that of other important theorists, Einstein did
not yet know. He was at that time unacquainted with the positive contributions,
of some years back, of the great Dutch physicist Hendrik Lorentz, and with the
subsequently famous attempt of Michelson. He wanted to proceed quite empiri-
cally, to suit his scientific feeling of the time, and believed that an apparatus such
as he sought would lead him to the solution of the problem, whose far-reaching
perspectives he already sensed. But there was no chance to build this apparatus.

132

RELATIVITY, THE SPECIAL THEORY

The skepticism of his teachers was too great, the spirit of enterprise too small.
Albert had thus to turn aside from his plan, but not to give it up forever. He still
expected to approach the major questions of physics by observation and experi-
ment’ [R2).

As to electromagnetic theory, Einstein was not offered a course on this subject
in his ETH days. As noted in Chapter 3, he learned this theory from Foppl’s
textbook.

4. The Winterthur Letter. A letter by Einstein to Grossman n, written in
1901 from Winterthur, informs us that aether drift experiments were still on Ein-
stein’s mind: ‘A new and considerably simpler method for investigating the motion
of matter relative to the light-aether has occurred to me. If the merciless fates
would just once give me the necessary quiet for its execution!’ [El 3]. Since there
are no preliminaries to this statement, one gains the impression that Grossmann
knew something about a previous method which Einstein must have had in mind
when they were together at the ETH.

This letter also shows that Einstein still believed in an aether as late as 1901.

5. The Bern Lecture. On the evening of December 5, 1903, Albert Einstein,
technical expert third class with provisional appointment, held a lecture in the
conference room of the Hotel Storchen in Bern before the Naturforschende
Gesellschaft Bern. He had been elected to membership of this society on May 2,
1903. The subject of his December lecture was ‘Theorie der elektromagnetischen
Wellen’ [F6]. It would obviously be extraordinarily interesting to know what Ein-
stein said that evening. However, to the best of my knowledge, no record of his
talk exists.

6. The Kyoto Address. Finally I quote another part of the translation from
German to Japanese to English of the Kyoto address that Einstein gave in 1922.
Before doing so, I should point out that I do not know what times are referred to
in the statements ‘I then thought . . .’ and ‘In those days . . .’.

‘I then thought I would want to prove experimentally to myself in any way the
flow of the aether to the earth, that is to say, the motion of the earth. In those days
when this problem arose in my mind, 1 had no doubt as to the existence of the
aether and the motion of the earth in it. Meanwhile 1 had a plan to try to test it
by means of measuring the difference of heats which were to appear in a ther-
mocouple according as the direction along or against which the light from a single
source was made to reflect by suitable mirrors, as I presupposed there should be
a difference between the energies of reflected lights in the opposite directions. This
idea was similar to the one in the Michelson experiment, but I had not carried out
the experiment yet to obtain any definite result’ [01].

7. Summary. In the same lecture Einstein remarked, ‘It is never easy to talk
about how I got to the theory of relativity because there would be various con-
cealed complexities to motivate human thinking and because they worked with
different weights’ [01]. Even with this admonition in mind, it would seem that
the following is a fair summary of Einstein’s work and thoughts on electrody-
namics prior to 1905.

‘subtle is the lord’

133

Einstein’s first important creative act dates from his high school days, when he
independently discovered self-induction, a contribution which should, of course,
not be associated with his name. At least twice he had an idea for a new exp>eri-
mental method to measure the aether drift. He intended to perform these exper-
iments himself but did not succeed in doing so, either because his teachers would
not let him [R2] or because he did not have enough free time [El 3]. He believed
in an aether at least until 1901 [El 3). Sometime during 1895 or 1896, the thought
struck him that light cannot be transformed to rest [El 2]. He knew of the
Michelson-Morley experiment which, however, was not as crucial to his formu-
lation of special relativity as were the first-order elTects, the aberration of light,
and the Fresnel drag [S6, 01]. He knew the 1895 paper of Lorentz in which the
Michelson-Morley experiment is discussed at length. He did not know the Lor-
entz transformations. He did not know any of those writings by Poincare which
deal with physics in technical detail.

It is virtually certain, however, that prior to 1905 Einstein was aware of the
1900 Paris address by Poincare and that he had also read Poincare’s remark of
1898 concerning the lack of intuition about the equality of two time intervals.
Before 1905 Einstein, together with his friends of the Akademie Olympia, did
indeed read some of Poincare’s general essays on science: ‘In Bern I had regular
philosophical reading and discussion evenings, together with K. Habicht and
Solovine, during which we were mainly concerned with Hume. . . . The reading
of Hume, along with Poincare and Mach, had some influence on my development’
[E14].

The four collections of Poincare essays — La Science et VHypothese, La Valeur
de la Science, Science et Methode, and Dernieres Pensees — first appeared in 1902,
1905, 1908, and 1913, respectively. All three programmatic papers by Poincare
mentioned in Section 6b are contained in one or another of these volumes. His
1898 article, in which he questioned the naive use of simultaneity, and his
St. Louis address of 1904 are found in La Valeur de la Science, his Paris address
of 1900 in Im Science et VLlypothese. This last book, the only one of the four to
appear before 1905, is the one Einstein and his friends read in Bern. I therefore
believe that, prior to his own first paper on relativity, Einstein knew the Paris
address in which Poincare suggested that the lack of any evidence for motion rel-
ative to the aether should hold generally to all orders in v/c and that ‘the cancel-
lation of the [velocity-dependent] terms will be rigorous and absolute.’ But there
is more. In La Science et VLlypothese, there is a chapter on classical mechanics in
which Poincare writes, ‘There is no absolute time; to say that two durations are
equal is an assertion which has by itself no meaning and which can acquire one

only by convention Not only have we no direct intuition of the equality of two

durations, but we have not even direct intuition of the simultaneity of two events
occurring in different places; this I have explained in an article entitled “La
Mesure du Temps”.’ I stress that Einstein and his friends did much more than
just browse through Poincare’s writings. Solovine has left us a detailed list of books
which the Akademie members read together. Of these, he singles out one and only

134

RELATIVITY, THE SPECIAL THEOky

one, La Science et rHypothese, for the following comment: ‘[This] book pro-
foundly impressed us and kept us breathless for weeks on end’ [El 5]!

I must say more about Einstein and Poincare and shall do so in Chapter 8 after
having discussed Einstein’s creation of special relativity in the next chapter.

References

Bl. Cf. W. L. Bryan (Ed.), A Debate on the Theory of Relativity. Open Court, Chi-
cago, 1927.

B2. D. B. Brace, Phil. Mag. 7, 317 (1904).

B3. A. M. Bork, his 57, 199 (1966).

B4. S. G. Brush, his 58, 230 (1967).

Cl. E. Cohn, Goett. Nachr., 1901, p. 74.

Dl. P. A. M. Dirac, Nature 168, 906 (1951); 169, 702 (1951).

D2. H. Dukas, memorandum to V. Hobson, secretary to Professor J. R. Oppenheimer,
June 21, 1966.

D3. P. Drude, The Theory of Optics (C. R. Mann and R. A. Millikan, Trans.), p.
457. Dover, New York, 1959.

El. A. Einstein, The Meaning of Relativity (E. P. Adams Tran.). Princeton University
Press, Princeton, N.J., 1921.

E2. , letter to M. Besso, December 23, 1925; EB, p. 215.

E2a. , Forschungen und Fortschntte 3, 36 (1927)

E3. , letter to O. Veblen, April 30, 1930.

E4. , Grundgedanken und Probleme der Relatwitdtstheorie. Imprimerie Roy ale,

Stockholm, 1923. English translation in [Nlj, p. 482

E5. , AdP 17, m (1905).

E6. in Albert Einstein: Philosopher- Scientist (P. A. Schilpp, Ed.). Tudor, New

York, 1949.

E7. , Jahrb. Rad. Elektr. 4, 411 (1907).

E8. , in Kultur der Gegenwart (E. Lecher, Ed.), Vol. 3, Sec. 3. Teubncr, Leipzig,

1915.

E9. , The Meaning of Relativity (5th edn.). Princeton University Press, Princeton,

N.J., 1955.

ElO. , Science 73, 375 (1931).

Ell. , Z. Angew. Chemie 44, 685 (1931).

E12. in Helle Zeit, Dunkle Zeit (C. Seclig, Ed.). Europa Verlag, Zurich, 1956.

El 3. , letter to M. Grossmann, 1901, undated.

El 4. , letter to M. Besso, March 6, 1952; EB, p. 464.

El 5. , Lettres a Maurice Solovine, p. VIII. Gauthier- Villars, Paris 1956.

FI. A. Fresnel, letter to F. Arago, September 1818. Reprinted in Oeuvres d’ Augustin
Fresnel, Vol. 2, p. 627. Imprimerie Royale, Paris, 1868.

F2. A. Fizeau, C. R. Ac. Sci. Paris 33, 349 (1851).

F3. G. F. FitzGerald, Science 13, 390 (1889).

F4. , letter to 0. Heaviside, quoted in A. M. Bork, Dictionary of Scientific Biog-

raphy, Vol. 5, p. 15. Scribner’s, New York, 1972.

F5. , letter to H. A. Lorentz, November 10, 1894. Reprinted in [B4].

‘subtle is the lord’

135

F6. M. FlCickiger, Albert Einstein in Bem^ pp. 71-6. Paul Haupt Verlag, Bern, 1974.
HI. J. N. Howard, Isis 58, 88 (1967).

H2. G. Holton, Isis 60, 133 (1969).

H3. H. Hertz, Gesammelte Werke (2nd edn.), Vol. 2, p. 23. Barth, Leipzig, 1894.

H4. H. Hertz, Electric Waves (D. E. Jones, Tran.), p. 21. Dover, New York, 1962.
H5. T. Hirosige, Hist. St. Phys. Sci. 7, 3 (1976).

II. J. Ishiwara, Einstein Koen-Roku, Tokyo-Tosho, Tokyo, 1977.

Kl. Kelvin, Baltimore Lectures, Appendix B. Clay, London, 1904.

K2. ,[Kll,p. vi.

K3. ,[H4],p. XV.

LI. H. A. Lorentz, Lectures on Theoretical Physics, Vol. 1, p. 3. McMillan, London,
1927.

L2. D. M. Livingston, The Master of Light, Chap. 3. Scribner’s, New York, 1973.

L3. H. A. Lorentz, Arch. Neerl. 21, 103 (1886). Reprinted in H. A. Lorentz, Collected
Papers, Vol. 4, p. 153. Nyhoff, the Hague, 1936.

L4. , Versuch Einer Theorte der Electrischen und Optischen Erscheinungen in

Bewegten Kdrpem, Collected Papers, Vol 5, p. 1. Brill, Leiden, 1895

L5. , letter to Lord Rayleigh, August 18, 1892. Reprinted in [S2].

L6. B. E. Livingston, Science 63, 105 (1926).

L7. H. A. Lorentz, The Theory of Electrons, Sec. 169. Teubner, Leipzig, 1909.

L8. J. Larmor (Ed ), The Scientific Writings of the Late George Francis FitzGerald.

Longmans Green, London, 1902.

L9. , (L8], p. Iviii.

LIO. , Aether and Matter. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1900.

Lll. , [L81, p. 514.

LI 2. H. A. Lorentz, Arch. Neerl. 25, 363 (1892); Collected Papers, Vol. 2, p. 164.

L13. , Versl. K. Ak. Amsterdam 1, 74 (1892); Collected Papers, Vol. 4, p. 219.

LI 4. , letter to G. F. FitzGerald, November 10, 1894. Reprinted in [B4J.

L15. , [L4),Sec. 89.

L16. , [L4],Sec. 31.

L17. , [L4l,Sec. 12.

LI 8. , Verb. Ges. Deutsch. Naturf Arzte 70, 56 (1898); Collected Papers, Vol. 7,

p. 101.

L19. , Versl. K. Ak. Amsterdam 10, 793 (1902); Collected Papers, Vol. 5, p. 139.

L20. , Proc. K. Ak. Amsterdam 6, 809 (1904); Collected Papers, Vol. 5, p. 172.

L21. J. Larmor, [LIO], Chap. 11.

Ml. J. C. Maxwell, Encyclopedia Britannica, 9th edn., Vol. 8, 1878. Reprinted in The
Scientific Papers of James Clerk Maxwell, Vol. 2, p. 763. Dover, New York.

M2. , 21, 315 (1880).

M3. A. A. Michelson, Am. J. Sci. 22, 120 (1881).

M4. , letter to Lord Rayleigh, March 6, 1887. Reprinted in [S2].

M5. , letter to Lord Rayleigh, August 17, 1887. Reprinted in [S2].

M6. and E. W. Morley, Am. ]. Sci. 34, 333 (1887).

M7. , F. G. Pease, and F. Pearson, Nature 123, 88 (1929); J. Opt. Soc. 18, 181

(1929).

M8. E. W. Morley and D. C. Miller, Phil. Mag, 9, 680 (1905).

M9. D. C. Miller, Rev. Mod. Phys. 5, 203 (1933).

136

RELATIVITY, THE SPECIAL THEORY

MIO. , Proc. Nat. Ac. Sci. 11, 306 (1925); Science 61, 617 (1925).

MU. , Science 63, 433 (1926).

Ml 2. A. A. Michelson, Studies in Optics^ Chap. 14. University of Chicago Press, Chi-
cago, 1927.

Ml 3. , letter to A. Einstein, December 5, 1923.

M14. R. McCormmach in Dictionary of Scientific Biography, Vol. 6, p. 340. Scribner’s,
New York, 1972.

Ml 5. A. I. Miller, Arch. Hist. Ex. Sci. 10, 207 (1973).

M16. H. Minkowski, Phys. Zeitschr. 9, 762 (1908).

M17. A. A. Michelson and E. W. Morley, Am. J. Sci. 31, 377 (1886).

M18. J. Mehra, Phys. Bldtt. 27, 385 (1971); University of Texas at Austin, Report
CPT-82, 1971.

Nl. Nobel Lectures in Physics 1901-1921, pp. 159fr. Elsevier, New York, 1967.

01. T. Ogawa, Jap. St. Hist. Sci. 18, 73 (1979).

02. O. Heaviside, letter quoted in (L8), p. xxvi.

PI. W. K. H. Panofsky and M. Phillips, Classical Electricity and Magnetism, Addi-
son-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1955.

P2. , [Pll,p. 174.

P3. , lPll,p. 347.

P4. , [PI], Chap. 15.

P5. H. Poincare, Rev. Metaphys. Morale 6, 1 (1898).

P6. , The Value of Science. Reprinted in The Foundations of Science (G. R

Halsied, Tran.). Science Press, New York, 1913
P7. , Report of the International Physics Congress (C. Guillaume and L Poin-

care, Eds.), Vol. 1, p. 1. Gauthier- Villars, Paris, 1900

P8. , Science and Hypothesis. Dover, New York, 1952.

P9. , Bull. Sci. Math. 28, 302 (1904).

PIO. , Theorie Mathematique de la Lumiere. Carre, Paris, 1889

Pll. , Electricite et Optique. Carre and Naud, Paris, 1901.

PI 2. , Oeuvres, Vol. 9, pp. 369-426. Gauthier- Villars, Paris, 1954.

PI 3. , Oeuvres, Vol. 9. pp. 427-88.

P14. , C. R. Ac. Sci. Pans 140, 1504 (1905), Oeuvres, Vol. 9, p. 489.

PI 5. , Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo 21, 129 (1906); Oeuvres, Vol 9, p 494.

PI 6. , Oeuvres, Vol. 9, p. 500.

Rl. Rayleigh, Phil. Mag. 4, 678 (1902).

R2. A. Reiser, Albert Einstein, p. 52. Boni, New York, 1930.

51. L. S. Swenson, The Ethereal Aether, p. 194. University of Texas Press, Austin,
1972.

52. R. S. Shankland, Isis 58, 86 (1967).

53. , Am. J. Phys. 32, 16 (1964).

54. , S. W. McCuskey, F. C. Leone, and G. Kuerti, Rev. Mod. Phys. 27, 167

(1955).

55. R. S. Shankland, Biography Quarterly, Vol. 2, No. 3. University of Hawaii Press,
Honolulu, 1979.

56. , Am. J. Phys. 31, 47 (1962); 41, 895 (1973).

57. , Am. J. Phys. 32, 16 (1964).

5 ^ P r

‘SUBTLE IS THE lord’

137

T. Trouton and H. R. Noble, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. A202, 165 (1903).
Veblen, letter to A. Einstein, April 17, 1930.

. Voigt, Goetl. Nachr., 1887, p. 41
. Voigt, AdP 35, 370, see footnote on p. 390 (1888)

. Voigt, Phys. Zeitschr. 9, 762 (1908).

The New Kinematics

7a. June 1905: Special Relativity Defined,

Lorentz Transformations Derived

1. Relativity's Aesthetic Origins. Without a carrying medium, light can as little
be seen as sound can be heard. Such was the sensible prejudice of nineteenth cen-
tury physics. The better light was understood, the more circumscribed became the
properties of its medium, the aether. The best of all possible aethers, it appeared,
was one which blows through man and his planet as they speed through this
absolutely immobile medium. When light turned out to be a transverse wave phe-
nomenon, the aether had to be declared quasi-rigid.

The special theory of relativity divested the aether of its principal mechanical
property, absolute rest, and thereby made the aether redundant. As Einstein put
it in the introduction to his June 1905 paper (referred to in this chapter as the
June paper), ‘the introduction of a “light-aether” will prove to be superfluous
since, according to the view to be developed [here], neither will a “space in abso-
lute rest” endowed with special properties be introduced nor will a velocity vector
be associated with a point of empty space in which electromagnetic processes take
place’ [El].* Special relativity represents the abandonment of mechanical pictures
as an aid to the interpretation of electromagnetism. The one preferred coordinate
system in absolute rest is forsaken. Its place is taken by an infinite set of preferred
coordinate systems, the inertial frames. By definition, any two of these are in uni-
form motion with respect to each other. The preference for uniformity of relative
motion makes this version of relativity a special one.

In the spring of 1905, even before the completion of the relativity paper, Ein-
stein had written to his friend Conrad Habicht, ‘The fourth work [i.e., El, the
fourth paper Einstein published in 1905] is available only in draft form and is an
electrodynamics of moving bodies in which use is made of a modification of the
tenets about space and time; the purely kinematic part of this work will surely
interest you’ [E2]. Small wonder that Einstein would draw his friend’s attention
to the kinematic part. In its entirety, the June paper consists of an introduction,
five sections on kinematics followed by five sections on electrodynamics, no refer-
ences, and one acknowledgment. The kinematic part contains the complete first
principles of the special relativity theory.

•For an English translation of this paper, sec (SI).

138

THE NEW KINEMATICS

139

As indicated in Chapter 6, special relativity was born after a decade of gestation.
However, the crucial kinematic insights which underlie this theory dawned on its
author not more than five or six weeks before the actual completion of the paper
under discussion. We know this from the talk given by Einstein in Kyoto, in
December 1922, which also reveals that this climactic period was preceded by a
year of struggle which had led him nowhere. I quote once again from the Kyoto
address [Olj:

‘I took into consideration Fizeau’s experiment, and then attempted to deal with
the problems on the assumption that Lorentz’s equations concerning the electron
should hold as well in the case of our system of coordinates being defined on the
moving bodies as defined in vacuo. At any rate, at that time I felt certain of the
truth of the Maxwell -Lorentz equations in electrodynamics. All the more, it
showed to us the relations of the so-called invariance of the velocity of light that
those equations should hold also in the moving frame of reference. This invariance
of the velocity of light was, however, in conflict with the rule of addition of veloc-
ities we knew of well in mechanics.

‘I felt a great difficulty to resolve the question why the two cases were in conflict
with each other. I had wasted time almost a year in fruitless considerations, with
a hope of some modification of Lorentz’s idea, and at the same time I could not
but realize that it was a puzzle not easy to solve at all.

‘Unexpectedly a friend of mine in Bern then helped me. That was a very beau-
tiful day when I visited him and began to talk with him as follows:

‘ “I have recently had a question which was difficult for me to understand. So
I came here today to bring with me a battle on the question.” Trying a lot of
discussions with him, I could suddenly comprehend the matter. Next day I visited
him again and said to him without greeting: “Thank you. I’ve completely solved
the problem.” My solution was really for the very concept of time, that is, that
time is not absolutely defined but there is an inseparable connection between time
and the signal velocity. With this conception, the foregoing extraordinary difficulty
could be thoroughly solved. Five weeks after my recognition of this, the present
theory of special relativity was completed.’

The friend in Bern was Besso, close to Einstein since the student days in Zurich,
colleague at the patent office since 1904. Thus the Kyoto address makes clear what
was the substance of the ‘loyal assistance of my friend M. Besso,’ to which Einstein
devoted the acknowledgment in his June paper. As to the completion of the work
in five weeks, since the paper was received by the Annalen der Physik on June
30, Einstein’s total concentration on relativity followed immediately upon the
relief of his having finished three major projects in statistical physics: the paper
on the light-quantum, his thesis, and the paper on Brownian motion, completed
on March 17, April 30, and around May 10, respectively.

In 1905 Einstein’s belief in ‘the truth of the Maxwell -Lorentz equations’ was
not unqualified, as we shall see later. It was strong enough, however, for him to
perceive the conflict between the constancy of the velocity of light (in the vacuum)

140

RELATIVITY, THE SPECIAL THEORY

and the relativity principle of classical mechanics. This principle, already long
known by then, states that all mechanical laws should be the same in any two
coordinate systems {x,y,zj) and {x\y\z\t') related by*

x' = X — vt y - y z^ - z t' - t (7.1)

Since 1909 these transformations have been called Galilean transformations.**
(Recall that in 1905 there existed as yet no evidence against the general validity
of Galilean invariance in pure mechanics.) The conflict arises if one attempts to
elevate Galilean invariance to a universal principle. An aether at absolute rest
hardly fits this scheme of things. Some physicists believed therefore that the very
foundations of electrodynamics should be revised.! Einstein opted for the alter-
native: ‘The phenomena of electrodynamics and mechanics possess no properties
corresponding to the idea of absolute rest’ [El]. In the June paper, he gave two
concrete reasons for this view: first, the absence of experimental evidence for an
aether drift and second, the existence of ‘asymmetries which do not appear to be
inherent in the phenomena.’ As an example of such an asymmetry, he considered
a system consisting of a magnet and a conductor. If the magnet moves in the pres-
ence of a resting conductor, then an electric field is generated which induces a
current in the conductor. If, on the other hand, the conductor moves in the pres-
ence of the resting magnet, then an electromotive force (proportional to ? X //)
is generated, which again causes a current. Transcribed rather freely, one might
say that Einstein cared for neither the logical disconnectedness of electricity and
magnetism nor the asymmetry between the two coordinate systems just described.

I argued in Chapter 6 that Einstein rejected the nineteenth century explanations
of the first-order aether drift effects as unconvincing and artificial and that the
second-order Michelson-Morley paradox was to some extent secondary to him.
Add to this his remark that ‘Maxwell’s electrodynamics — as usually understood
at the present time — when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which
are not inherent in the phenomena’ and one has the motivation for the June paper:
Einstein was driven to the special theory of relativity mostly by aesthetic argu-
ments, that is, arguments of simplicity. This same magnificent obsession would
stay with him for the rest of his life. It was to lead him to his greatest achievement,
general relativity, and to his noble failure, unified field theory.

2. The Two Postulates. The new theory is based in its entirety on two pos-
tulates^ [Elj:

*As in ihc previous chapter, I shall, for simplicity, consider relative motions in the x direction only

**This term was introduced by Philipp Frank [FI].

fFor details, see Section 3 of Pauli’s encyclopedia article, in German (PIJ, or in its English trans-
lation [P2].

V do not copy Einstein verbatim. The term inertial frame gained currency only some time later, as
did the terms Galilean invariance and Lorentz invariance, which I freely use from now on.

THE NEW KINEMATICS

141

1. The laws of physics take the same form in all inertial frames.

2. In any given inertial frame, the velocity of light c is the same whether the light

be emitted by a body at rest or by a body in uniform motion.

FitzGerald and Lorentz had already seen that the explanation of the Michel-
son-Morley experiment demanded the introduction of a new postulate, the con-
traction hypothesis. Their belief that this contraction is a dynamic effect (molec-
ular forces in a rod in uniform motion differ from the forces in a rod at rest) was
corrected by Einstein: the contraction of rods is a necessary consequence of his two
postulates and is for the very first time given its proper observational meaning in
the June paper.

What is so captivating about the Einstein of 1905 is the apparent ease and the
Jraicheur with which he introduces new ideas. If free radiation consists of light-
quanta, then the emission and absorption of light should also go by discrete steps;
if van’t Hoff’s law holds for solutions, then it should also hold for suspensions; if
the velocity of light does not seem to depend on the velocity of the emitter, then
why not make that into a postulate? Steps like these were the result of very hard
thinking, yet the final product has that quality of greatness of looking easy if not
obvious.

The big question was, of course, the compatibility of the two postulates, about
which Einstein had the following to say in his review article of 1907 [E3]: ‘Sur-
prisingly, it turned out that it was only necessary to formulate the concept of time
sufficiently precisely to overcome the first-mentioned difficulty [i.e., the Michel-
son-Morley result, which Einstein did mention for the first time in this 1907
paper]. All that was needed was the insight that an auxiliary quantity introduced
by H. A. Lorentz and denoted by him as “local time” can be defined as “time”,
pure and simple.’

There are as many times as there are inertial frames. That is the gist of the
June paper’s kinematic sections, which rank among the highest achievements of
science, in content as well as in style. If only for enjoyment, these sections ought
to be read by all scientists, whether or not they are familiar with relativity. It also
seems to me that this kinematics, including the addition of velocity theorem, could
and should be taught in high schools as the simplest example of the ways in which
modern physics goes beyond everyday intuition.* (If only I could make a similar
recommendation for the case of quantum theory. . . .)

I briefly recapitulate the content of the new kinematics.** In a given inertial
frame an observer A measures his position x,, relative to the origin by means of
rigid rods, using (as Einstein states explicitly) ‘the methods of Euclidean geome-
try.’ A second observer B does likewise for Then A’s clock at 5^ is synchronized
with B’s clock at Xb by means of light signals. If A’s clock is synchronous with

*Sec, for example, the excellent popular yet rigorous account by Born (Bl]

**Morc details are found in standard texts, c g., [Ml] and IP3]

142

RELATIVITY, THE SPECIAL THEORY

B’s, and B’s with that of a third observer C, then A’s is synchronous with C’s.
Synchronicity is therefore fully defined within any one inertial frame. Because of
the second postulate, the use of light signals remains a valid tool for the compar-
ison of the A and B clocks even if, after initial synchronization in the common
inertial frame, B and his clock start moving with uniform velocity relative to A,
that is, if B joins another inertial frame.

[Remark. In an unpublished manuscript,! written in 1921, Einstein spells out
three additional assumptions which are made in this reasoning: (1) Homogeneity:
the properties of rods and clocks depend neither on their position nor on the time
at which they move, but only on the way in which they move. (2) Isotropy: the
properties of rods and clocks are independent of direction. (3) These properties
are also independent of their history.]

The time of an event is defined as the reading of a clock coincident with the
event and at rest relative to it. Events which are simultaneous in one inertial frame
are not simultaneous in another. Einstein’s example: two identical rods R, and Rj
are coincident in a given inertial frame in which two observers O, and O 2 have
synchronized their respective clocks. Observer O, stays with R, in this frame, O 2
moves with R 2 into another inertial frame. Three durations are measured: O,
measures the time for a light ray to move from one end of R, to the other and
back, and O 2 does the same for R 2 , finding a time ti. Observer O, also measures
the duration t\ for light to move from one end of R2 to the other and back. Then
/, = tiy in accordance with the first postulate, but /, t\\ ‘We see that we cannot

attach absolute meaning to the concept of simultaneity.’

The two postulates of special relativity have physical content only if the exper-
imental prescriptions for measuring position and time (and, therefore, for velocity)
are added. The postulates together with these prescriptions fully specify Einstein’s
theory of special relativity.

3. From the Postulates to the Lorentz Transformations. Let us continue with
the example of the two rods. Physics would be incomplete if the inequality
t\ could not be sharpened into a specific relation between these two durations.
Einstein obtained this relation by deriving the Lorentz transformation from his
postulates. In essence, his argument runs as follows. Consider two inertial frames,
{x,y,z,t) and the second moving with a velocity v in the x direction

relative to the first. At / = = 0, the two frames coincide. At that moment a

spherical light wave is emitted from the Joint origin, t seconds later the wave is
spread over the sphere

x' -h -h z' = (7.2)

The compatibility of the two postulates demands that the wave be equivalently
spread over

(xy + {yr + (z^y = c\ty ( 7 . 3 )

fThis is the Morgan manuscript, the origins of which arc described in Chapter 9.

THE NEW KINEMATICS

143

The relations between the two sets of coordinates implied by these two equations
are assumed to be linear, in accordance with the homogeneity of space and time.
Then simple arithmetic yields

- vt) / = C), = e7(/ - vx/c\ (7.4)

7 = (1 - (7.5)

where € is an arbitrary scale factor depending on v only. Since the product of this
transformation and its inverse should yield the identity, one has

€{v)€{-v) = 1 ( 7 . 6 )

Symmetry demands that the transformations on y and z should not change if v
-* —V, and hence

€{v) = €{-v)

Thus€(y) = 1 (since €(0) = l)and

(7.7)

x' = y{x - vt) y' = y z' = z t' = y{t - vx/c^) (7.8)

In Chapter 6, we encountered Eqs. 7.4-7. 8 in the discussion of papers by Lorentz
and Poincare. The derivation of the Lorentz transformations (Eq. 7.8) from first
principles occurs for the first time in Einstein’s paper, however.*

Einstein also pointed out that transformations of the type shown in Eq. 7.8 form
a group, Vie dies sein muss,’ as it should be**: two successive transformations
with velocities in the same direction result in a new transformation of the
form of Ekj. 7.8 with a velocity v given by

+ ^2

1 +

(7.9)

Twenty years later, Einstein heard something about the Lorentz group that
greatly surprised him. It happened while he was in Leiden. In October 1925
George Eugene Uhlenbeck and Samuel Goudsmit had discovered the spin of the
electron [Ul] and thereby explained the occurrence of the alkali doublets, but for
a brief period it appeared that the magnitude of the doublet splitting did not come
out correctly. Then Llewellyn Thomas supplied the missing factor, 2, now known
as the Thomas factor [Tl]. Uhlenbeck told me that he did not understand a word
of Thomas’s work when it first came out. ‘I remember that, when I first heard
about it, it seemed unbelievable that a relativistic effect could give a factor of 2
instead of something of order v/c . . . . Even the cognoscenti of the relativity theory
(Einstein included!) were quite surprised’ [U2). At the heart of the Thomas
precession lies the fact that a Lorentz transformation with velocity followed by
a second one with a velocity Vi in a different direction does not lead to the same

*Scf [Rl] for interesting comments on the roles of postulates and observations in the speaal theory
of relativity.

**He did not expand on this cryptic statement.

144

RELATIVITY, THE SPECIAL THEORY

inertial frame as one single Lorentz transformation with the velocity -j- V 2
[Kl]. (It took Pauli a few weeks before he grasped Thomas’s point.*)

4, Applications. In his June paper, Einstein put his postulates to use in ways
which are now standard textbook material. No derivations will therefore be given
in what follows next. (For Einstein’s own derivations, see [SI].)

a) From the postulates to the Lorentz transformations, as already discussed.

b) From the Lorentz transformations to the FitzGerald- Lorentz contraction of
rods and the dilation of time:

7 / = /o ^ = 7^0 (7.10)

where /q and Iq are, respectively, a length and a duration in the rest frame.
The kinematic origins of these relations were not at once generally understood.
In 1911 Einstein still had to explain: The question whether the Lorentz con-
traction does or does not exist is confusing. It does not “really” exist in so far
as it does not exist for an observer who moves [with the rod]; it “really” exists,
however, in the sense that it can as a matter of principle be demonstrated by
a resting observer’ [E4].

c) The addition of velocities, already mentioned.

d) The relativistic expression of the aberration from the zenith:

tga - y- (7.11)

e) The transformation law for light frequencies:

1 / = — V cos (p/c) (7.12)

where <t> is the angle between a monochromatic light ray with frequency v and
the X direction. Thus Einstein is the discoverer of the transverse Doppler effect:
1 / differs from v even if the motion of the light source is perpendicular to the
direction of observation. In 1907 he published a brief note about the experi-
mental detectability of the transverse effect (ESj.

f) Not found in the June paper is a derivation of the Fresnel formula**

c' = -+ v(\ - I/n') (7.13)

•See the correspondence between Pauli, Bohr, and Kramers between February 26 and March 12,
1926 (P4}.

••See Section 6a for the meaning of the various symbols. For comments by Einstein on the drag in
dispersive media, see [ESaj.

THE NEW KINEMATICS

145

which is an immediate consequence of Eq. 7.9: let = c/n, V 2 — v and
expand to the first order in v^l I find the absence of this derivation in the
June paper more remarkable than the absence of any mention of Michelson
and Morley. The labor involved is not excessive, the Fizeau experiment had
been very important for Einstein^s thinking, and a successful aether-free der-
ivation might have pleased even a man like Einstein, who was not given to
counting feathers in his cap. The honor of the first derivation (in 1907) goes
to Max von Laue, who pointed out that ‘according to the relativity principle,
light is completely dragged along by the body [i.e., the streaming fluid], but
just because of that its velocity relative to an observer who does not participate
in the motion of the body does not equal the vector sum of its velocity relative
to the body and [the velocity] of the body relative to the observer’ [LI]. As was
noted in Chapter 6, for small v/c it is possible to derive Eq. 7.13 by means of
a dynamic calculation that does not explicitly involve relativity [P5]. The
kinematic derivation Just given does not mean that such a calculation is incor-
rect, but rather that it is not necessary. Lorentz invariance suffices to obtain
the desired result.

g) Einstein rather casually mentioned that if two synchronous clocks C, and C 2
are at the same initial position and if C 2 leaves A and moves along a closed
orbit, then upon return to A, C 2 will run slow relative to Ci, as often observed
since in the laboratory. He called this result a theorem and cannot be held
responsible for the misnomer clock paradox, which is of later vintage. Indeed,
as Einstein himself noted later [E6], “no contradiction in the foundations of
the theory can be constructed from this result” since C 2 but not C, has expe-
rienced acceleration.

h) Covariance of the electrodynamic equations. Using a horrible but not uncom-
mon notation in which each component of the electric and magnetic field has
its own name,* Einstein proved the Lorentz covariance of the Maxwell-
Lorentz equations, first for the source-free case, then for the case with sources.
He also discussed the equations of motion of an electrically charged particle
with charge e and mass m in an external electromagnetic field. In a frame
(x,0 in which the particle is instantaneously at rest, these equations are

= (7.14)

Applying the transformations (Eq. 7.8), he found that in a frame with velocity
V in the x direction:

dy _

H' = e(E' + 1>X H'/c)

dit'y

= K

(7.15)

(7.16)

•Htrtz, Planck, and Poincare did likewise. Lorentz used three-vector language.

146

RELATIVITY, THE SPECIAL THEORY

and thus obtained what he called a ‘new manner of expression’ for the Lorentz
force: whereas in 1895 Lorentz [L2] had introduced Eq, 7.16 as a new
assumption (see Eq. 6.13), Einstein obtained this force kinematically from the
purely electric force acting on a charged particle that is instantaneously at rest.
He also gave an expression for the kinetic energy fV of the particle for the case
where accelerations are small and therefore no energy is given off in the form
of radiation. In that case,

= J' K'^>dx' ” ^ J' y^vdv = mc\y — 1) (7.17)

a relation which led him to comment: ‘When v — c, W becomes infinite.
Velocities greater than light have ... no possibilities of existence.’ (During
1907 Einstein had a correspondence with W. Wien on this question.)

[Remark. This conclusion is perhaps not quite correct. The precise statement
is: If a particle moves with a velocity smaller (larger) than c in one inertial frame,
then it moves with a velocity smaller (larger) than c in all inertial frames. (The
relative velocity of inertial frames is :< c by definition.) Thus c is a velocity bar-
rier in two respects. According to Eq. 7.9, c is the upper (lower) limit for a particle
moving with sublight (superlight) velocity. Several physicists have speculated
about the weird properties of ‘tachyons,’ the name coined by Gerald Feinberg [ F21
for hypothetical superlight-velocity particles.* Tachyons can appear in our cosy
sub-c world only if they are produced in pairs. Tachyon physics is therefore nec-
essarily a topic in quantum field theory. The quantum theory of free tachyons has
been developed to some extent [F2]. The theoretical description of interactions
involving tachyons is thus far an open problem.]

5. Relativity Theory and Quantum Theory. The June paper also contains the
transformation law for the energy £ of a light beam;

E' = yE{\ — V cos <t>/c) (7.18)

(where (/> is defined as in Eq. 7.12) as well as the following comment by Einstein
on the similarities between Eqs. 7.12 and 7.18: ‘It is remarkable that the energy
and the frequency of a light complex vary with the state of motion of the observer
in accordance with the same law.’

Three months earlier, Einstein had completed a paper which contains the
relation

E ^ hv (7.19)

between the energy and the frequent 7 of a light-quantum [E7]. It is therefore of
interest that Einstein would call the similarities in transformation properties of E

*Scc, c.g., [B2) and [F2) also for references to earlier literature.

THE NEW KINEMATICS

147

and V remarkable without referring to his own quantum relation between the
energy and the frequency of light, which must have been fresh in his mind.
Remarkable though this silence may be, it is not inexplicable. As I have already
intimated, Einstein’s belief in the validity of the Maxwell- Lorentz electrody-
namics was strong but not unqualified. As he put it in his light-quantum paper,
‘The wave theory of light which operates with continuous functions of space vari-
ables has proved itself an excellent tool for the description of purely optical phe-
nomena. . . . [However] it is conceivable that [this] theory may lead to conflicts
with experiment when one applies it to the phenomena of the generation and
conversion of light’ [E7]. He considered the Maxwell- Lorentz theory of the free
electromagnetic field to be so good that ‘it will probably never be replaced by
another theory’; but he had his doubts about this theory where the interaction of
light and matter was concerned. Also, he rightly regarded his own quantum
hypotheses of 1905 more of a new phenomenological description than a new the-
ory, in sharp contrast to his relativity theory, which he rightly regarded as a true
theory with clearly defined first principles. Thus it is not surprising that he would
derive Eqs. 7.12 and 7.18 separately, without appeal to Eq. 7.19.

Not just in 1905 but throughout his life Einstein considered quantum theory as
a preliminary to a true theory and relativity as the royal road toward such a the-
ory. But that is a subject that will have to wait until Chapter 26.

6. 7 Could Have Said That More Simply/ In the fall of 1943 Einstein
received a visit from Julian Boyd, then the librarian of the Princeton University
library. The purpose of Boyd’s call was to ask Einstein to give the manuscript of
the June paper to the Book and Authors War Bond Committee as a contribution
to the sale of war bonds. Einstein replied that he had discarded the original man-
uscript after its publication but added that he was prepared to write out a copy of
its text in his own hand. This offer was gladly accepted. Einstein completed this
task on November 21, 1943. Under the auspices of the committee, this manuscript
was auctioned at a sale in Kansas City on February 3, 1944, sponsored by the
Kansas City Women’s City Club and the Women’s Division of the Kansas City
War Finance Committee. The winning bid of six and a half million dollars was
made by the Kansas City Life Insurance Company. On that same occasion, an
original incomplete manuscript by Einstein and Valentin Bargmann, entitled ‘Das
Bi-Vektor Feld,’ was auctioned for five million dollars.* Soon after these events
both manuscripts were given to the Library of Congress [B3].

Helen Dukas told me how the copy of the June paper was produced. She would
sit next to Einstein and dictate the text to him. At one point, Einstein laid down
his pen, turned to Helen and asked her whether he had really said what she had
just dictated to him. When assured that he had, Einstein said, ‘Das hatte ich ein-
facher sagen konnen.’

'This paper was published in English in 1944 [ES).

RELATIVITY, THE SPECIAL THEORY

148

7b. September 1905: About E =* me*

‘The mass of a body is a measure of its energy content,’ Einstein, technical expert
third class at the patent office in Bern, concluded in September 1905 [E9]. ‘The
law of conservation of mass is a special case of the law of conservation of energy,’
Einstein, technical expert second class, wrote in May 1906 [ElO]. ‘In regard to
inertia, a mass m is equivalent to an energy content . . . mcl This result is of
extraordinary importance since [it implies that] the inertial mass and the energy
of a physical system appear as equivalent things,’ he stated in 1907 [Ellj. For
special cases the equivalence of mass and energy had been known for about
twenty-five years.* The novelty of 1905 was the generality of this connection.
Einstein’s proof of 1905** for the relation

E = me* (7 20)

runs as follows. Consider a body with energy £, at rest in a given inertial frame.
The body next emits plane waves of light with energy L/2 in a direction making
an angle 0 with the x axis and an equal quantity of light in the opposite direction.
After these emissions the body has an energy so that = £, — = L.

Consider this same situation as seen from an inertial frame moving with a velocity
V in the x direction. According to Eq. 7.18, A£' = £' — E\ - yL indepen-
dently of 0, Thus

AF - A£ = L{y - 1) (7.21)

or, to second order,

AE' - ^E ^ (7.22)

Now, Einstein said, note that Eq. 7.21 for the energy differential is identical in
structure to Eq. 7.17 for the kinetic energy differential of a particle, so that ‘if a
body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c*.
The fact that the energy withdrawn from the body becomes energy of radiation
evidently makes no difference.’

This brief paper of September 1905 ends with the remark that bodies ‘whose
energy content is variable to a high degree, for example, radium salts,’ may per-
haps be used to test this prediction. But Einstein was not quite sure. In the fall of
1905 he wrote to Habicht, ‘The line of thought is amusing and fascinating, but

•See Section 7e on electromagnetic mass. Also before September 1905, Fritz Hasenbhrl had discov-
ered that the kinetic energy of a cavity increases when it is filled with radiation, in such a way that
the mass of the system appears to increase [HI].

••He gave two proofs in later years. In 1934 he gave the Gibbs lecture in Pittsburgh and deduced
Eq.7 .20 from the validity in all inertial frames of energy and momentum conservation for a system
of point particles [El 2], In 1946 he gave an elementary derivation in which the equations for the
aberration of light and the radiation pressure are assumed given [El 3).

THE NEW KINEMATICS

149

I cannot know whether the dear Lord doesn’t laugh about this and has played a
trick on me (. . . mich an der Nase herumgefiihrt hat) [El 4]. In his 1907 review
he considered it ‘of course out of the question’ to reach the experimental precision
necessary for using radium as a test [El 5]. In another review, written in 1910, he
remarked that ‘for the moment there is no hope whatsoever’ for the experimental
verification of the mass-energy equivalence [El 6].

In all these instances, Einstein had in mind the loss of weight resulting from
radioactive transformations. The first to remark that the energy -mass relation
bears on binding energy was Planck. In 1907 he estimated the mass equivalent of
the molecular binding energy for a mole of water [P6]. This amount (about 10'*
g) was of course too small to be observed— but at least it could be calculated. A
quarter of a century had to pass before a similar estimate could be made for
nuclear binding energy. Even that question did not exist until 1911, the year the
nuclear model of the atom was published. Two years later, Paul Langevin had an
idea: ‘It seems to me that the inertial mass of the internal energy [of nuclei] is
evidenced by the existence of certain deviations from the law of Prout’ [L3]. That
was also the year in which J. J. Thomson achieved the first isotope separation.
Langevin’s interesting thought did not take account of the influence of isotopic
mixing and therefore overrated nuclear binding eflfects. Next came the confusion
that the nucleus was supposed to consist of protons and electrons — no one had the
right constituents yet. Still, Pauli was correct in surmising — we are now in
1921 — that ‘perhaps the law of the inertia of energy will be tested at some future
time [my italics] by observations on the stability of nuclei’ [P7]. In 1930 it was
written in the bible of nuclear physics of the day that one can deduce from the
binding energy of the alpha particle that a free proton weighs 6.7 MeV more than
a proton bound in a helium nucleus [R2]. What else could one say in terms of a
proton -electron model of the nucleus?

Nuclear binding energy and its relation to £ = mc^ came into its own in the
1930s. In 1937 it was possible to calculate the velocity of light from nuclear reac-
tions in which the masses of the initial and final products and also the energy
release in the reaction were known. The resulting value for c was accurate to
within less than one half of one per cent [B4]. When in 1939 Einstein sent his
well-known letter to President Roosevelt, it is just barely imaginable that he might
have recalled what he wrote in 1907: ‘It is possible that radioactive processes may
become known in which a considerably larger percentage of the mass of the initial
atom is converted into radiations of various kinds than is the case for radium’
[E15].

7c. Early Responses

Maja Einstein’s biographical sketch gives a clear picture of her brother’s mood
shortly after the acceptance of his June paper by the Annalen der Physik: ‘The
young scholar imagined that his publication in the renowned and much-read jour-

150

RELATIVITY, THE SPECIAL THEORY

nal would draw immediate attention. He expected sharp oppx)sition and the
severest criticism. But he was very disappointed. His publication was followed by
an icy silence. The next few issues of the journal did not mention his paper at all.
The professional circles took an attitude of wait and see. Some time after the
appearance of the paper, Albert Einstein received a letter from Berlin. It was sent
by the well-known Professor Planck, who asked for clarification of some points
which were obscure to him. After the long wait this was the first sign that his
paper had been at all read. The joy of the young scientist was especially great
because the recognition of his activities came from one of the greatest physicists of
that time' [M2]. Maja also mentioned that some time thereafter letters began to
arrive addressed to ‘Professor Einstein at the University of Bern.’

The rapidity with which special relativity became a topic of discussion and
research is largely due to Planck’s early interest. In his scientific autobiography,
Planck gave his reasons for being so strongly drawn to Einstein’s theory: ‘For me
its appeal lay in the fact that I could strive toward deducing absolute, invariant
features following from its theorems’ [P7a]. The search for the absolute — forever
Planck’s main purpose in science — had found a new focus. ‘Like the quantum of
action in the quantum theory, so the velocity of light is the absolute, central point
of the theory of relativity.’ During the winter semester of 1905-6, Planck pre-
sented Einstein’s theory in the physics colloquium in Berlin. This lecture was
attended by his assistant von Laue. As a result von Laue became another early
convert to relativity, published in 1907 the pretty note [LI] on the Fizeau exper-
iment, did more good work on the special theory, and became the author of the
first monograph on special relativity [L4]. Planck also discussed some implications
of the ‘Relativtheorie’ in a scientific meeting held in September 1906 [P8]. The
first PhD thesis on relativity was completed under his direction [M3].

The first paper bearing on relativity but published by someone other than Ein-
stein was by Planck [P6], as best I know. Among his new results I mention the
first occasion on which the momentum -velocity relation

p = ymv, (7.23)

the transformation laws

P'. - y(p. -f ) p;-p,

p', = p. E' = y(^E j, (7.24)

and the variational principle

aj = 0 (7.25)

L =» (7.26)

of relativistic point mechanics were written down. Planck derived Eq. 7.23 from
the action of an electromagnetic field on a charged point particle, rewriting Eqs.

THE NEW KINEMATICS

151

7.15, 7.16 as d{my^') ! dt' = K'. The straightforward derivation of Eq. 7.23 via
the energy -momentum conservation laws of mechanics was not found until 1909
[L5].

Among other early pajDers on relativity, 1 mention one by Ehrenfest in 1907
[El 7], in which is asked for the first time the important question: How does one
apply Lorentz transformations to a rigid body?

Planck was also the first to apply relativity to the quantum theory. He noted
that the action is an invariant, not only for point mechanics, (where it equals the
quantity ILdt in Eq. 7.25), but in general. From this he deduced that his constant
hisdi relativistic invariant. ‘It is evident that because of this theorem the signifi-
cance of the principle of least action is extended in a new direction’ [P9) — a con-
clusion Einstein might have drawn from his Eqs. 7.13, 7.18, and 7.19.

Not only the theoreticians took early note of the relativity theory. As early as
1906, there was already interest from exp)erimentalists in the validity of the rela-
tion

E = 7mc' (7.27)

between the total energy and the velocity of a beta ray, as will be discussed in
Section 7e.

The publication of the 1905 papers on special relativity marked the beginning
of the end of Einstein’s splendid isolation at the patent office. From 1906 on, vis-
itors would come to Bern to discuss the theory with him. Von Laue was one of
the first (perhaps the very first) to do so. ‘The young man who met me made such
an unexpected impression on me that I could not believe he could be the father of
the relativity theory,’ von Laue later recalled [S2].* Other young men came as
well. From Wurzburg Johann Jakob Laub wrote to Einstein, asking if he could
work with him for three months [L61; the ensuing stay of Laub in Bern led to
Einstein’s first papers published jointly with a collaborator [El 8, El 9]. Rudolf
Ladenburg, who became a close friend of Einstein in the Princeton years, came
from Breslau (now Wroclaw). Yet in these early years the relativists were few in
number. In July 1907 Planck wrote to Einstein, ‘As long as the advocates of the
relativity principle form such a modest-sized crowd, it is doubly important for
them to agree with one another’ [PIOJ.

Then, in 1908, came the ‘space and time’ lecture of Herman Minkowski. In
1902, Minkowski, at one time Einstein’s teacher in Zurich, had moved to the
University of Goettingen. There, on November 5, 1907, he gave a colloquium
about relativity in which he identified Lorentz transformations with pseudorota-
tions for which

-h X 2 -f Xj -f x\ is invariant, = id (7.28)

*Von Laue had been on an alpine trip before coming to Bern. Einstein delivered himself of the
opinion, T don’t understand how one can walk around up there [S3].

152

RELATIVITY, THE SPECIAL THEORY

where x,, ^ 2 , denote the spatial variables. The most important remarks made
in this colloquium were that the electromagnetic potentials as well as the charge-
current densities are vectors with respect to the Lorentz group, while the electro-
magnetic field strengths form a second-rank tensor (or a Traktor, as Minkowski
then called it). Soon thereafter Minkowski published a detailed paper [M5] in
which for the first time the Maxwell -Lorentz equations are presented in their
modern tensor form, the equations of point mechanics are given a similar treat-
ment, and the inadequacy of the Newtonian gravitation theory from the relativistic
point of view is discussed. Terms such as spacelike vector, timelike vector, light
cone, and vjorld line stem from this paper.

Thus began the enormous formal simplification of special relativity. Initially,
Einstein was not impressed and regarded the transcriptions of his theory into ten-
sor form as ‘uberfliissige Gelehrsamkeit,’ (superfluous learnedness).* However, in
1912 he adopted tensor methods and in 1916 acknowledged his indebtedness to
Minkowski for having greatly facilitated the transition from special to general
relativity [E20].

Minkowski’s semitechnical report on these matters, the ‘space and time’ lecture
given in Cologne in 1908, began with these words:** ‘The views of space and time
which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics,
and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and
time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of
union of the two will preserve an independent reality.’ He ended as follows: ‘The
validity without exception of the world postulate (i.e., the relativity postulates), I
like to think, is the true nucleus of an electromagnetic image of the world, which,
discovered by Lorentz, and further revealed by Einstein, now lies open in the full
light of day’ [M6]. It is hardly surprising that these opening and closing state-
ments caused a tremendous stir among his listeners, though probably few of them
followed the lucid remarks he made in the body of the speech. Minkowski did not
live to see his lecture appear in print. In January 1909 he died of appendicitis.
Hilbert called him *a gift of heaven’ when he spoke in his memory [H21.

The rapid growth of Einstein’s reputation in scientific circles dates from about
1908. In July 1909 the University of Geneva conferred the title of doctor honoris
causa ‘a Monsieur Einstein, Expert du Bureau Federal de la Propriete intellec-
tuelle.’ I do not know what citation accompanied this degree. However, Charles
Guyc, then professor of experimental physics at Geneva, must have had a hand
in this. Since Guye’s interests centered largely on the velocity dependence of beta-
ray energies, it is probable that Einstein received this first of many honors because
of relativity.

* Einstein told this to V. Bargmann, whom I thank for in turn relating it to me.

••The text of this colloquium was prepared for publication by Sommerfeld. It appeared in 1915
[M4), long after Minkowski’s death. This paper is not included in Minkowski collected works (pub-
lished in 1911) [M5].

THE NEW KINEMATICS

153

Early in 1912, Wilhelm Wien, Nobel laureate in physics for 1911, wrote to
Stockholm to make the following recommendation for the year 1912:* ‘I propose
to award the prize in equal shares to H. A. Lorentz in Leiden and A. Einstein in
Prague. As my motivation for this proposal, I would like to make the following
observations. The principle of relativity has eliminated the difficulties which
existed in electrodynamics and has made it possible to predict for a moving system
all electromagnetic phenomena which are known for a system at rest.’ After enu-
merating some features of the theory he continued, ‘From a purely logical point
of view, the relativity principle must be considered as one of the most significant
accomplishments ever achieved in theoretical physics. Regarding the confirmation
of the theory by experiment, in this respect the situation resembles the experi-
mental confirmation of the conservation of energy. [Relativity] was discovered in

an inductive way, after all attempts to detect absolute motion had failed While

Lorentz must be considered as the first to have found the mathematical content of
the relativity principle, Einstein succeeded in reducing it to a simple principle.
One should therefore assess the merits of both investigators as being
comparable. . . .’

Then and later the special theory would have its occasional detractors. How-
ever, Wien’s excellent account shows that it had taken the real pros a reasonably
short time to realize that the special theory of relativity constituted a major
advance.

7d. Einstein and the Special Theory After 1905

The fifth section of Einstein’s review paper on relativity, completed in 1907, deals
with gravitation and contains this statement: ‘The principle of the constancy of
the light velocity can be used also here [i.e., in the presence of gravitation] for the
definition of simultaneity, provided one restricts oneself to very small light paths’
[E3]. Einstein already knew then that the special theory was only a beginning
(see Chapter 9). This largely explains why the special theory per se soon faded
from the center of his interests. Also, he was not one to follow up on his main
ideas with elaborations of their detailed technical consequences. In addition, from
1908 until some time in 1911 the quantum theory rather than relativity was
uppermost in his mind (see Chapter 10).

Apart from review articles and general lectures, Einstein’s work on the conse-
quences of the special theory was over by 1909. I shall confine myself to giving a
short chronology of his post- 1905 papers on this subject. This work is discussed
and set in context by Pauli [PI, P2].

1906. Discussion of center-of-gravity motion in special relativity [ElO] (see
especially [Ml] for a detailed discussion of this subject).

^Scc Chapter 30 .

154

RELATIVITY, THE SPECIAL THEORY

1906. A comment on the possibilities for determining the quantity (1 — c^)

in beta-ray experiments [E21].

1907. A remark on the detectability of the transverse Doppler effect [E5].

1907. Brief remarks on Ehrenfest’s query concerning rigid bodies: ‘To date both

the dynamics and the kinematics of the rigid body . . . must be considered
unknown’ [E22].

1907. Earlier Einstein had derived the expression mc\^ — 1) for the kinetic
energy. Now he introduces the form for the total energy. Furthermore, the
transformation of energy and momentum in the presence of external forces (i.e.,
for open systems) is derived.* Further ruminations about the rigid body: ‘If rela-
tivistic electrodynamics is correct, then we are still far from having a dynamics for
the translation of rigid bodies’ [E23]. In this paper Einstein also expresses an
opinion concerning the bearing of his recent light-quantum hypothesis on the
validity of the free Maxwell equations. It seemed to him that these equations
should be applicable as long as one deals with electromagnetic energy amounts or
energy transfers which are not too small, just as — he notes — the laws of ther-
modynamics may be applied as long as Brownian-motion-type effects (fluctua-
tions) are negligible.

1907. The review paper (E3]. This is the transitional paper from the special to
the general theory of relativity. Among the points discussed and not mentioned in
the foregoing are (1) the remark that the total electric charge of a closed system
is Lorentz invariant, (2) comments on the beta-ray experiments of Kaufmann, a
topic to be discussed in the next section and, (3) a discussion of relativistic
thermodynamics.**

1908-10. Papers with Laub on the relativistic electrodynamics of ponderable
media [El 8, El 9) (see [PI] or [P2], Sections 33, 35).

A further comment on this subject appeared in 1909 [E25]. In 1910, Einstein
published a brief note on the nonrelativistic definition of the ponderomotive force
in a magnetic field [E26].

This concludes the brief catalog of Einstein’s later contributions to special rel-
ativity. (I have already mentioned that in 1935 [El 2] and again in 1946 [El 3] he
gave alternative derivations of £ = m<?) In later years he reviewed the special
theory on several occasions, starting with the first lecture he gave at a physics
conference [E27], and again in 1910 [E28|, 1911 [E29], 1914 [E30], 1915 [E31],
and 1925 [E32]. Special relativity is, of course, discussed in his book The Mean-
ing oj Relativity [E33]. The first newspaper article he ever wrote deals largely
with the special theory [E34|; he wrote reviews of books bearing on this subject,
in praise of writings by Brill [E35], Lorentz [E35], and Pauli [E36].

•See I PI} or (P2], Section 43,

••For a discussion of the early contributions to this subject, see | PI) or |P2], Sections 46-49; sec
also (E24). For a subsequent severe criticism of these papen, see [02], Since this subject remains
controversial to this day (see, e.g., {L7)), it does not lend itself as yet to historic assessment.

THE NEW KINEMATICS

155

We have now discussed special relativity from its nineteenth century antece-
dents to Einstein s motivation, his paper of 1905 and its sequels, and the early
reactions to the new theory. I shall not discuss the further developments in classical
special relativity. Its impact on modern physics is assessed in papers by Wolfgang
Panofsky [Pll] and Edward Purcell [P12].

Remaining unfinished business, mainly related to the roles of Einstein, Lorentz,
and Poincare, will be discussed in Chapter 8. By way of transition, let us consider
the problem of electromagnetic mass.

7e. Electromagnetic Mass: The First Century*

Long before it was known that the equivalence of energy and inertial mass is a
necessary consequence of the relativity postulates and that this equivalence applies
to all forms of energy, long before it was known that the separate conservation
laws of energy and of mass merge into one, there was a time when dynamic rather
than kinematic arguments led to the notion of electromagnetic mass, a form of
energy arising specifically in the case of a charged particle coupled to its own
electromagnetic field. The electromagnetic mass concept celebrates its first centen-
nial as these lines are written. The investigations of the self-energy problem of the
electron by men like Abraham, Lorentz, and Poincare have long since ceased to
be relevant. All that has remained from those early times is that we still do not
understand the problem.

‘A close analogy to this question of electromagnetic mass is furnished by a sim-
ple hydrodynamic problem,’ Lorentz told his listeners at Columbia University
early in 1906 [L8]. The problem he had in mind was the motion of a solid, per-
fectly smooth sphere of mass moving uniformly with a velocity v in an infinite,
incompressible, ideal fluid. Motions of this kind had been analyzed as early as
1842 by Stokes [S4]. Stokes had shown that the kinetic energy E and the momen-
tum p of the system are given by £" = and p = mt;, where m = mo + /x-
The parameter n — the induced, or hydrodynamic, mass — depends on the radius
of the sphere and the density of the fluid. The analogy to which Lorentz referred
was first noted by J. J. Thomson, who in 1881 had studied the problem ‘of a
charged sphere moving through an unlimited space filled with a medium of spe-
cific inductive capacity K, . , . The resistance (to the sphere’s motion] . . . must
correspond to the resistance theoretically experienced by a solid in moving through
a perfect fluid’ [T2]. Thomson calculated the kinetic energy of the system for small
velocities and found it to be of the form E = where m = mo + 'The
effect of the electrification is the same as if the mass of the sphere were

*Some of the material of this section was presented earlier in an article on the history of the theory
of the electron (PI 31.

156

RELATIVITY, THE SPECIAL THEORY

increased ’ Thus he discovered the electromagnetic mass /ii, though he did not

give it that name. The reader will enjoy repeating the calculation he made for the
M of the earth electrified to the highest potential possible without discharge.

Continuing his Columbia lecture, Lorentz remarked, ‘If, in the case of the ball
moving in the perfect fluid, we were obliged to confine ourselves to experiments
in which we measure the external forces applied to the body and the accelerations
produced by them, we should be able to determine the eflfective mass [mo 4- n],
but it would be impossible to find the values of mo and [fi] separately. Now, it is
very important that in the experimental investigation of the motion of an electron,
we can go one step farther. This is due to the fact that the electromagnetic mass
is not a constant but increases with velocity’ [L8].

Not long after Thomson made his calculations, it became clear that the energy
of the charged sphere has a much more complicated form than )^mv^ if eflfects
depending on v/c are included (see, e.g., [H3, S5, S6]). The charged hard-sphere
calculations to which Lorentz referred in his lectures were those performed in
Goettingen by Max Abraham, whose results seemed to be confirmed by experi-
ments performed by his friend Walter Kaufmann, also in Goettingen.*

There is a tragic touch to the scientific career of both these men. In 1897, Kauf-
mann had done very good cathode-ray experiments which led him to conclude: ‘If
one makes the plausible assumption that the moving particles are ions, then e/m
should have a different value for each substance and the deflection [in electric and
magnetic fields] should depend on the nature of the electrodes or on the nature of
the gas [in the cathode tube). Neither is the case. Moreover, a simple calculation
shows that the explanation of the observed deflections demands that e/m should
be about 10^ while even for hydrogen \e/m\ is only about 10^’ [K2]. Had Kauf-
mann added one conjectural sentence to his paper, completed in April 1897, he
would have been remembered as an independent discoverer of the electron. On
the 30th of that same month, J. J. Thomson gave a lecture on cathode rays before
the Royal Institution in which he discussed his own very similar results obtained
by very similar methods but from which he drew a quite firm conclusion: ‘These
numbers seem to favor the hypothesis that the carriers of the charges arc smaller
than the atoms of hydrogen’ [T3|. It seems to me that Kaufmann’s paper deserves
to be remembered even though he lacked Thomson’s audacity in making the final
jump toward the physics ot new particles.

As for Abraham, he was a very gifted theoretical physicist (Einstein seriously
considered him as his successor when in 1914 he left the ETH for Berlin), but it
was his fate to be at scientific odds with Einstein, in regard both to the special
theory and the general theory of relativity — and to lose in both instances. We shall
encounter him again in Chapter 13.

I return to the electromagnetic mass problem. Kaufmann was the first to study
experimentally the energy- velocity relation of electrons. In 1901 he published a
paper on this subject, entitled ‘The Magnetic and Electric Deflectability of Bec-

For details about this episode, see [Gl|.

THE NEW KINEMATICS

157

quercl Rays [i.e., 0-rays] and the Apparent Mass of the Electron’ [K3]. Stimu-
lated by these investigations, Abraham soon thereafter produced the complete
answers for the electromagnetic energy and the electromagnetic momentum
{pe\m) of an electron considered as a hard sphere with charge e and radius a and
with uniform charge distribution (0 = l/c, h = 2e^l'iac'^):

= — - In

1 , 1+0

2a V0 1-0

- 1

Pdr

f\ +

^ 1 +0

2ac0 V 20 "^1-0

1 ,

iiv 4 -

(7.29)

(7.30)

At the 74th Naturforscherversammlung, held in Karlsbad in September 1902,
Kaufmann presented his latest experimental results [K4]. Immediately after him,
Abraham presented his theory [Alj. Kaufmann concluded that ‘the dependence
[of Eon v\ is exactly represented by Abraham’s formula.’ Abraham said, ‘It now
becomes necessary to base the dynamics of the electrons from the outset on elec-
tromagnetic considerations’ (in 1903 he published his main detailed article on the
rigid electron [A2]). One sees what Lorentz meant in his Columbia lectures: if it
would have been true, if it could have been true, that the E-v relation were
experimentally exactly as given by Eq. 7.29, then two things would have been
known: the electron is a little rigid sphere and its mass is purely electromagnetic
in origin.

Such was the situation when in 1904 Lorentz proposed a new model: the elec-
tron at rest is again a little sphere, but it is subject to the FitzGerald- Lorentz
contraction [L9]. This model yields a velocity dependence different from Eqs. 7.29
and 7.30:

f ^ • • • (7.31)

Pam = = Mt' + • • • (7.32)

where Mo = 3^/4, Mi = 5m/ 4, and m is as in Eqs. 7.29 and 7.30. Lorentz, aware
of Kaufmann’s results and their agreement with Abraham’s theory, remarked that
his equations ought to agree ‘nearly as well ... if there is not to be a most serious
objection to the theory I have now proposed’ and did some data-fitting which led
him to conclude that there was no cause for concern.

In order to understand Lorentz’s equations (Eqs. 7.31 and 7.32) and Poincare s
subsequent proposal for a modification of these results, it is helpful to depart
briefly from the historic course of events and derive Lorentz s results from the
transformation properties of the electromagnetic energy momentum tensor density
[PI 3]. With the help of that quantity we can write (in the Minkowski
metric)*

•As usual, wc assume the electron to move in the x direction. Equations 7.33 and 7.34 were first
published in 1911 by von Laue [LIO].

‘58

RELATIVITY, THE SPECIAL THEORY

= J T^dx = 7[ J T^mdx, - J T,,{0)dx„

Pdn. = -^J T,Xx = J TMx. - J r„(0)dx.

(7.33)

(7.34)

where ‘0’ refers to the rest frame. Since is traceless and since the rest frame
is spatially isotropic, these transformation relations at once yield Eqs. 7.31 and
7.32.

Dynamic rather than kinematic arguments had led to the concept of electro-
magnetic mass. Dynamic rather than kinematic arguments led Poincare to modify
Lorentz’s model. In his brief paper published in June 1905, Poincare announced,
‘One obtains ... a possible explanation of the contraction of the electron by assum-
ing that the deformable and compressible electron is subject to a sort of constant
external pressure the action of which is proportional to the volume variation’
[PI 4]. In his July 1905 memoir he added, ‘This pressure is proportional to the
fourth power of the experimental mass of the electron’ [PI 5]. In Chapter 6, I
discussed the kinematic part of these two papers. More important to Poincare was
the dynamic part, the ‘explanation of the contraction of the electron.’ It is not for
nothing that both papers are entitled ‘Sur la Dynamique de I’Electron.’

In modern language, Poincare’s dynamic problem can be put as follows. Can
one derive the equations for a Lorentz electron and its self-field from a relativis-
tically invariant action principle and proue that this electron, a sphere at rest,
becomes an ellipsoid when in uniform motion in the way Lorentz had assumed
it did? Poincare first showed that this was impossible. But he had a way out. ‘If
one wishes to retain [the Lorentz theory] and avoid intolerable contradictions, one
must assume a special force which explains both the contraction (in the direction
of motion] and the constancy of the two [other] axes’ [P15|.

Poincare’s lengthy arguments can be reduced to a few lines with the help of
T^. Write Eq. 7.31 in the form

- PV (7.35)

where V = Aira^/'iy is the (contracted) volume of the electron and P = 3^cV
\6ira^ is a scalar pressure. Add a term pP5^, the ‘Poincare stress,’ to where
p = 1 inside the electron and zero outside. This term cancels the — PV term in
for all velocities, it does not contribute to and it serves to obtain the
desired contraction. Assume further — as Poincare did — that the mass of the elec-
tron is purely electromagnetic. Then p e^/a and P \i.l (P his result
mentioned earlier. Again in modern language, the added stress makes the finite
electron into a closed system. Poincare did not realize how highly desirable are the
relations

/’elm = YMK (7.36)

which follow from his model! (See [M7] for a detailed discussion of the way Poin-
care proceeded.)

THE NEW KINEMATICS

159

Next we must return to Kaufmann. Stimulated by the new theoretical devel-
opments, he refined his experiments and in 1906 announced new results: ‘The
measurements are incompatible with the Lorentz- Einstein postulate. The Abra-
ham equation and the Bucherer equation* represent the observations equally well
...’(K51.

These conclusions caused a stir among the theoretical experts. Planck discussed
his own re-analysis of Kaufmann’s data at a physics meeting in 1906 [PI 6]. He
could find no flaw, but took a wait-and-see attitude. So did Poincare in 1908
[PI 7]. Lorentz vacillated: The experiments ‘are decidedly unfavorable to the idea
of a contraction, such as I attempted to work out. Yet though it seems very likely
that we shall have to relinquish it altogether, it is, I think, worthwhile looking
into it more closely . . .’ [LI 2]. Einstein was unmoved: ‘Herr Kaufmann has
determined the relation between [electric and magnetic deflection] of /3-rays with
admirable care. . . . Using an independent method, Herr Planck obtained results
which fully agree with [the computations of] Kaufmann. ... It is further to be
noted that the theories of Abraham and Bucherer yield curves which fit the
observed curve considerably better than the curve obtained from relativity theory.
However, in my opinion, these theories should be ascribed a rather small proba-
bility because their basic postulates concerning the mass of the moving electron
are not made plausible by theoretical systems which encompass wider complexes
of phenomena’ [E3]. Soon after this was written, experimental confirmation for
E = was obtained by Bucherer [B7]. Minkowski was delighted. To intro-
duce a rigid electron into the Maxwell theory, he said, is like going to a concert
with cotton in one’s ears [M8]. The issue remained controversial, however. Wien,
in his letter to the Nobel committee, commented early in 1912, ‘Concerning the
new experiments on cathode and /3-rays, I would not consider them to have deci-
sive power of proof. The experiments are very subtle, and one cannot be sure
whether all sources of error have been excluded.’ The final experimental verdict
in favor of relativity came in the years 1914-16,**

Special relativity killed the classical dream of using the ener-
gy-momentum-velocity relations of a particle as a means of probing the dynamic
origins of its mass. The relations are purely kinematic. The classical picture of a
particle as a finite little sphere is also gone for good. Quantum field theory has
taught us that particles nevertheless have structure, arising from quantum fluc-
tuations. Recently, unified field theories have taught us that the mass of the elec-
tron is certainly not purely electromagnetic in nature.

But we still do not know what causes the electron to weigh.

* Alfred Bucherer (B5) and Langevin (LI 1] had independently invented an extended electron model
with FitzGerald- Lorentz contraction but with constant volume. This model was analyzed further
by Poincare [P151 and by Ehrenfest (£37]. In 1908 Bucherer informed Einstein that his, Bucherer’s,
experiments had led him to abandon his own model in favor of the relativity prediction (B61.

•*Scc [PI] or (P21, Section 29, for detailed references to the experimental literature up to 1918.

i6o

RELATIVITY, THE SPECIAL THEORY

References

At, M. Abraham, Phys. Zeitschr. 4, 57 (1902).

A2. , AdP 10, 105 (1903).

Bl. M. Bom, Die Relativitdtstheorie Einsteins. Springer, Berlin, 1921. Translated as
Einstein*s Theory of Relativity (H. L. Brose, Tran.). Methuen, London, 1924.

B2. O. M. Bilaniuk, V. K. Deshpande, and E. C. G. Sudarshan, Am. J. Phys. 30, 718,
(1962).

B3. F. E. Brasch, Library of Congress Quarterly 2 (2), 39 (1945).

B4. W. Braunbcck, Z. Phys. 107, 1 (1937).

B5. A. H. Bucherer, Mathematische Einfuhrung in die Elektronentheorie, pp. 57-8.
Tcubner, Leipzig, 1904.

B6. , letters to A. Einstein, September 7, 9, and 10, 1908.

B7. , Phys. Zeitschr. 9, 755 (1908).

El. A. Einstein, AdP 17, 891 (1905).

E2. , letter to C. Habicht, spring 1905, undated.

E3. , Jahrb. Rad. Elektr. 4, 411 (1907).

E4. , Phys. Zeitschr. 12, 509 (1911).

E5. , AdP 23, 197 (1907).

E5a. , Astr. Nachr. 199, 7, 47, (1914).

E6. , PAW, 1916, p. 423; Naturw. 6, 697 (1918).

E7. 17, 132 (1905).

E8. and V. Bargmann, Ann. Math. 45, 1 (1944).

E9. , AdP 18, 639 (1905).

ElO. , AdP 20, 627; footnote on p. 633 (1906).

Ell. ,[E31,p.442.

E12. , Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 41, 223 (1935).

El 3. , Technion /. 5, 16 (1946).

El 4. , letter to C. Habicht, fall 1905, undated.

E15. ,[E31,p.443.

E16. , Arch. Sci. Phys. Nat. 29, 5, 125 (1910), see esp. p. 144.

E17. P. Ehrenfest, AdP 23, 204 (1907).

E18. A. Einstein and J. J. Uub, AdP2^, 532 (1908); corrections in AdP 27, 232 (1908)
and 28, 445 (1909).

E19. , , AdP 2%, 541 (1908).

E20. , Die Grundlage der Allgemeinen Relativitdtstheorie, introduction. Barth,

Leipzig, 1916.

E21. , i4JP21, 583 (1906).

E22. ,.4^/^23,206(1907).

E23. , AdP 23, 371 (1907).

E24. , Science 80, 358 (1934).

E25. , AdP 28, 885 (1909).

E26. , Arch. Sci. Phys. Nat. 30, 323 (1910).

E27. , Phys. Zeitschr. 10, 817 (1909).

E28. , Arch. Sci. Phys. Nat. 29, 5, 125 (1910).

E29. , Viertelj. Schrift Naturf Ges. Zurich 56, 1 (1911).

E30. , Scientia 15, 337 (1914).

THE NEW KINEMATICS

l6l

£31. in Kultur der Gegenwart (E. Lecher, Ed.), Vol.l, p. 251. Teubner, Leipzig,

1915.

E32. , [E31], 2nd edn., Vol. 1, p. 783.

E33. , The Meaning of Relativity; 5th edn. Princeton University Press, Princeton,

N.J., 1956.

E34. , Die Vossische Zeitung, April 26, 1914.

E35. , Naturw. 2, 1018 (1914).

£36. , Naturw. 10, 184 (1922).

E37, P. Ehrcnfest, Phys. Zeitschr. 7, 302 (1906).

FI. P. Frank, Sitz. Ber. Akad. Wiss. Wien. Ila, 118, 373 (1909), esp. p. 382.

F2. G. Fcinberg, Phys. Rev. 159, 1089 (1967); D17, 1651 (1978).

Gl. S. Goldberg, Arch. Hist. Ex. Sci. 7, 7 (1970).

HI. F. Hasenohrl, AdP 15, 344 (1904); 16, 589 (1905).

H2. D. Hilbert in H. Minkowski, Ges. Abh. (see [M5)), Vol. 1. p. xxxi.

H3. O. Heaviside, Phil. Mag. 27, 324 (1889).

Kl. H. A. Kramers, Quantum Mechanics (D. ter Haar, Tran.), Sec. 57. Interscience,
New York, 1957.

K2. W. Kaufmann, AdP SI, 545 (1897).

K3. , Goett. Nachr., 1901, p. 143.

K4. , Phys. Zeitschr. 4, 54 (1902).

K5. , AdP\%,A%l (1906).

LI. M. von Laue, AdP 23, 989 (1907).

L2. H. A. Lorentz, Versuch einer Theone der Electnschen and Optischen Erscheinun-
gen in Bewegten Kdrpern. Brill, Leiden, 1895. Reprinted in Collected Papers^ Vol.
5, p. 1. Nyhoff, the Hague, 1937.

L3. P. Langevin, J. de Phys. 3, 553 (1913).

L4. M. Laue, Das Relativitdtspnnzip Vieweg, Braunschweig, 1911.

L5. G. N. Lewis and R. Tolman, Phil. Mag. 18, 510 (1909).

L6. J. J. Laub, letter to A. Einstein, February 2, 1908.

L7. P. T. Landsberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 45, 149 (1980).

L8. H. A. Lorentz, The Theory of Electrons, p. 40. Teubner, Leipzig, 1909.

L9. , Proc. R. Ac. Amsterdam 6, 809 (1904); Collected Papers, Vol. 5, p. 172.

LIO. M. von Laue, AdP 35, 124 (1911).

Lll. P. Langevin, Rev. Gen. Sci. 16, 257 (1905).

L12. H. A. Lorentz, [L8],p. 213.

Ml. C. M0ller, The Theory of Relativity, Chap. 2. Oxford University Press, Oxford,
1952.

M2. Maja Einstein, Albert Einstein, Beitrag fur sein Lebensbild, Florence, 1924,
unpublished.

M3. K. von Mosengeil, AdP 22, 867 (1907). Reprinted in Planck, Abhandlungen, Vol.
2, p. 138.

M4. H. Minkowski, AdP AT, 927 (1915).

M5. , Goett. Nachr., 1908, p. 53. Reprinted in Gesammelte Abhandlungen von

Herman Minkowski, Vol. 2, p. 352. Teubner, Leipzig, 1911.

M6. , Phys. Zeitschr. 10, 104 (1909); Ges. Abh., Vol. 2, p. 431.

M7. a. I. Miller, Arch. Hist. Ex. Sci. 10, 207 (1973).

M8. H. Minkowski, Phys. Zeitschr. 9, 762 (1908).

i 62

RELATIVITY, THE SPECIAL THEORY

01. T. Ogawa, Jap, St, Hist, Set. 18, 73 (1979).

02. H. Ott, Z. Phys. 175, 70 (1963).

PI. W. Pauli, Encyklopddie der Mathematischen Wissenschaften, Vol. 5. Part 2, p.
539. Tcubner, Leipzig, 1921.

P2. , Theory of Relativity (G. Field, Tran.). Pergamon Press, London, 1958.

P3. W. K. H. Panofsky and M. Phillips, Classical Electricity and Magnetism, Chap.

15. Addison- Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1955.

P4. W. Pauli, Wissenschaftlicher Briefwechsel, Vol. 1, pp. 296-312. Springer, New
York, 1979.

P5. See e.g., [P31., Chap. 11.

P6. M. Planck. Verh, Deutsch. Phys. Ges. 4, 136 (1906); see also PAW, 1907, p. 542;
AdP2^, 1 (1908).

P7. W. Pauli, (PI] or (P21, Sec. 41.

P7a. M. Planck, Wissenschaftliche Selbstbiographie. Barth, Leipzig, 1948. Reprinted in
M. Planck, Physikalische Abhandlungen und Vortrdge, Vol. 3, p. 374. Vieweg,
Braunschweig, 1958.

P8. , Phys. Zeilschr. 7, 753 (1906); Abhandlungen, Vol. 2, p. 121.

P9. >[P6],Sec. 12.

PIO. , letter to A. Einstein, July 6, 1907.

Pll. W. K. H. Panofsky in Proc. Einstein Centennial Symposium at Princeton, 1979,
p. 94. Addison- Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1980.

P12. E. M. Purcell, [Pll], p. 106.

PI 3. A. Pais in Aspects of Quantum Theory (A. Salam and E. P. Wigner, Eds.), p. 79.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1972.

P14. H. Poincare, C. R. Ac. Set. Pans 140, 1504 (1905); Oeuvres de Henri Poincare,
Vol. 9, p. 489. Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1954.

P15. , Rend. Ctre. Mat. Palermo 21, 129 (1906); Oeuvres, Vol. 9, p. 494; see esp.

Sec. 8.

P16. M. Planck, Phys. Zeitschr. 7, 753 (1906); Abhandlungen, Vol. 2, p. 121.

P17. H. Poincare, Rev. Gen. Sci. 19, 386, 1908; Oeuvres, Vol. 9, p. 551.

Rl. H. P. Robertson, Rev. Mod. Phys. 21, 378 (1949).

R2. E. Rutherford, J. Chadwick, and C. D. Ellis, Radiations From Radioactive Sub-
stances, p. 531. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1930.

51. A. Sommerfeld, Ed., The Principle of Relativity, p. 37. Dover, New York.

52. Sc, p. 130.

53. Sc,p. 131.

54. G. G. Stokes, Mathematical and Physical Papers, Vol. 1, p. 17. Johnson, New
York, 1966.

55. G. Scaric, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. 187, 675 (1896).

56. A. Schuster, Phil. Mag. 43, 1 (1897).

Tl. L. H. Thomas, Nature 117, 514 (1926); Phil. Mag. 3, 1 (1927).

T2. J. J. Thomson, Phil. Mag. 11, 229 (1881).

T3. in The Royal Institute Library of Science, Physical Sciences, Vol. 5, p. 36.

Elsevier, New York, 1970.

Ul. G. E. Uhlenbeck and S. Goudsmit, Naiurw. 13, 953 (1925).

U2. , Phys. Today 29 (6), 43 (1976).

The Edge of History

/. A New Way of Thinking. On April 6, 1922, the Societe Fran^ise de Phi-
losophic (which Henri Poincare had helped found) convened for a discussion of
the special and the general theories of relativity. Among those in attendance were
the mathematicians Elie Cartan, Jacques Hadamard, and Paul Painleve, the
physicists Jean Becquerel, Albert Einstein, and Paul Langevin, and the philoso-
phers Henri Bergson, Leon Brunschvicg, Edouard LeRoy, and Emile Meyerson.
In the course of the discussions, Bergson expressed his admiration for Einstein’s
work: ‘I see [in this work] not only a new physics, but also, in certain respects, a
new way of thinking’ [Blj.

Special relativity led to new modes of philosophical reflection. It also gave rise
to new limericks, such as the one about the young lady from Wight. However,
first and foremost this theory brought forth a new way of thinking in physics itself,
new because it called for a revision of concepts long entrenched in the physics and
chemistry of the classical period. In physics the great novelties were, first, that the
recording of measurements of space intervals and time durations demanded more
detailed specifications than were held necessary theretofore and, second, that the
lessons of classical mechanics are correct only in the limit v/c « 1. In chemistry
the great novelty was that Lavoisier’s law of mass conservation and Dalton s rule
of simply proportionate weights were only approximate but nevertheless so good
that no perceptible changes in conventional chemistry were called for. Thus rel-
ativity turned Newtonian mechanics and classical chemistry into approximate sci-
ences, not diminished but better defined in the process.

Today these revisions seem harmless and are easy to teach. To Einstein they
came rather abruptly, but only after years of unsuccessful thinking. His postulates
were obvious to him once he had conceived them. When I talked with him about
those times of transition, he expressed himself in a curiously impersonal way. He
would refer to the birth of special relativity as ‘den Schritt,’ the step.

It was otherwise in the case of Lorentz and Poincare. Each of them had strug-
gled hard with these same problems, made important steps toward their solution,
and garnered deep insights along the way. But neither of them had quite made
the final transitional steps. In later years all three men, Einstein, Lorentz, and
Poincare, reacted to the special theory of relativity in ways which arouse curiosity.

163

164

RELATIVITY, THE SPECIAL THEORY

Why, on the whole, was Einstein so reticent to acknowledge the influence of the
Michelson-Morley experiment on his thinking? Why could Lorentz never quite
let go of the aether? Why did Poincare never understand special relativity? These
questions lead us to the edge of history.

It is natural to suppose but wrong to conclude that the use of the term the edge
of history implies that its user has a clear picture and sharp definition of what
history is. History deals with happenings in the past. The history of a pieriod is
an account of that period based on a selective sampling of dates and facts from a
pool of information which, it is safe to assume, is incomplete. The selective factor
is necessary as well as unavoidably subjective. Therefore one cannot speak of the
history of a period. An historian can definitely be wrong but often cannot be sure
of being right. That much is clear. Also, the knowledge of selected facts and dates
is necessary but not sufficient if one is not content — and one should not be— with
some insight into what happened but wishes to inquire further how ‘it’ happened.
In the case of the history of discovery, questions like, Why did A create what he
did, why did B readily accept what A created, why did C resist A’s new ideas?
are fascinating. In my many years of immersion in theoretical physics I have
known A’s, B’s, and C’s. Though their concerns may not have been as profound
as relativity, I often found it baffling to answer such questions as those just raised.
Creation, acceptance, and resistance, whether in science or in other areas, are acts
and attitudes the whys of which can be grasped only if one knows, along with
facts, how the minds of A and B and C work. Who knows whether he knows?

However, while the answers to the A-B-C questions are elusive and deliciously
conjectural, the same is not necessarily true for the questions themselves. Return-
ing to Einstein, Lorentz, and Poincare, the questions I raised about them are the
result of patient reading of their papers. The questions themselves are therefore
distilled from an historical record, and I do not think it is at all bold to call them
part of history. Their answers, it seems to me, are beyond history. Somewhere
between the question and the answer lies history’s edge, a term I have now defined
with more precision than history itself. In what follows I shall not entirely refrain
from indulging in a bit of extrahistorical speculation regarding the answers.

First, however, a few more faas.

2. Einstein arid the Literature. Einstein’s 1907 article [El] for the Jahrbuch
der Radioaktivitdt und Elektronik was written at the invitation of Johannes Stark,
the founder and editor of that series. In agreeing to review relativity theory, Ein-
stein wrote to Stark, ‘I should note that unfortunately I am not in a position to
orient myself about everything that has been published on this subject, because
the library is closed in my free time. Apart from my own papers, I know of a
paper by Lorentz (1904), one by Cohn, one by Moscngeil, and two by Planck.*
I would be much obliged if you could point out further relevant publications to
me, if such arc known to you’ [E2]**. This letter, as well as an earlier one to

•All these papers are referred to in Chapters 6 and 7.

••This letter was published in an article by Hermann (HI).

the edge of history

165

Besso [E3], shows that access to the literature was difficult for the man from the
patent office. In his reply to Einstein’s letter, Stark mentioned work by Planck,
von Laue, and himself and added, ‘Apart from these papers and those mentioned
by you, I do not know of any others either’ [SI]. Thus neither Einstein nor Stark
was aware of Poincare’s long paper bearing on relativity, completed in July 1905
and published in the 1906 volume of Rendiconti del Circolo matematico di
Palermo [PI]. Minkowski referred to this article on November 5, 1907, in his
lecture! before the Goettinger Mathematische Verein [Ml]. It is therefore certain
that this publication was in circulation in December 1907, the time at which Ein-
stein completed his review, and a fortiori in March 1908, when he added some
corrections and comments to the review [E4]. Nevertheless, especially in view of
the exchange between Einstein and Stark, I see no grounds for thinking that in
1907 Einstein knew of Poincare’s paper and chose to ignore it.

I believe, however, that Einstein’s complaint about his difficulties in getting
hold of books and journals, while no doubt genuine, is only a secondary factor in
the understanding of his handling of existing literature. The truth of the matter
is that he did not much care. Read for example what he wrote in the introduction
to a paper published in 1906: ‘It seems to me to be in the nature of the subject,
that what is to follow might already have been partially clarified by other authors.
However, in view of the fact that the questions under consideration are treated
here from a new point of view, I believed I could dispense with a literature search
which would be very troublesome for me, especially since it is to be hoped that
other authors will fill this gap, as was commendably done by Herr Planck and
Herr Kaufmann on the occasion of my first paper on the principle of relativity’
[E5].* This statement is not arrogant if, and only if, arrogance is a mark of inse-
curity. To me these lines express ebullience, total self-assurance, and a notable
lack of taste.**

The period during which Einstein was unaware of Poincare’s technical writing
on relativity now stretches into 1908. I noted in Section 6b that by 1905 Einstein
had already read Poincare’s La Science et LHypothese, in which it is conjectured
that the undetectability of the earth’s motion relative to the aether should hold to

fScc Section 7c.

♦“Es schcint mir in dcr Natur dcr Sachc zu licgcn, dasz das Nachfolgendc zum Tcil bcrcits von
andcrcn Autorcn klargestellt scin diirftc. Mil Riicksicht darauf jedoch, dasz hicr die bctreffcndcn
Fragcn von cincm ncucn Gesichlspunkl aus behandcit sind, glaublc ich, von cincr fiir mich schr
umstandlichcn Durchmuslcrung dcr Lilcratur abschcn zu durfcn, zumal zu hoffcn ist, dasz dicsc
Luckc von andcrcn Autorcn noch ausgcfiillt wcrdcn wird, wic dies in dankenswertcr Weise bei mci-
ner ersten Arbeit Uber das Rclalivitaisprinzip durch Hrn. Planck und Hrn. Kaufmann bcrcits gc-
schchen ist.”

••Einstein was evidently able to get to the literature if he set his mind to it. A number of journals
are quoted in his 1 907 paper [El], including even the American Journal of Science of 887 in which
the Michelson-Morley experiment was reported. I would not be surprised if Einaem had coptrf
that reference from one of Lorentz’s papers. Also, in 1906 Einstein mention^ (Eb) a paper by
Poincare (P2] which came to his attention because it appeared in a Festschrift for Lorentz.

i66

RELATIVITY, THE SPECIAL THEORY

all orders in v/c and also in which critical comments are made on the naive use
of simultaneity. It cannot be said, however, that the content of Einstein’s June
1905 paper depends in any technical sense on these important remarks by Poin-
care. Others in Einstein’s position might perhaps have chosen to mention Poincare
at the earliest opportunity. However, it does not seem to me that Einstein had
compelling reasons to do so in 1905. I shall return soon to what Einstein had to
say about Poincare in later years. Here I note that Poincare’s name appears only
once in a paper by Einstein on relativity, to wit, in ‘Geometric und Erfahrung,’
the text of a lecture he gave in 1921 on general relativity [E7] in which he praises
‘der tiefe und scharfsinnige Poincare,’ the deep and sharp-witted P., for his ideas
on non-Euclidean geometry — ideas which, incidentally, are found in Chapter 3
of La Science et VHypothese.

3. Lorentz and the Aether. To Lorentz simplicity meant simple dynamics.
As an important example of the Lorentz style, consider his reaction to Kaufmann’s
result of 1901-6 about the purely electromagnetic origin of the electron’s mass*:
‘With a view to simplicity, it will be best to admit Kaufmann’s conclusion, or
hypothesis, if we prefer so to call it, that the negative electrons have no material
mass at all. This is certainly one of the most important results of modern physics
. . .’ [LI]. I believe that Lorentz clung to the idea of a purely electromagnetic
electron mass for the rest of his life.

Lorentz’s words about Kaufmann are found in his 1906 Columbia lectures, the
publication of which was held up for three years ‘on account of my wish to give
some further development to the subject’ (L2]. Despite this considerable delay,
‘Einstein’s principle of relativity [has not] received an adequate treatment’ [L2].
This is indeed true. For example, Lorentz still opines that the contraction of rods
has a dynamic origin. There is no doubt that he had read and understood Ein-
stein’s papers by then. However, neither then nor later was he prepared to accept
their conclusions as the definitive answer to the problems of the aether. With his
customary clarity, he stated his own credo in the course of lectures given at the
Teyler Foundation in Haarlem in 1913 [L3]:

‘According to Einstein, it has no meaning to speak of motion relative to the
aether. He likewise denies the existence of absolute simultaneity.

‘It is certainly remarkable that these relativity concepts, also those concerning
time, have found such a rapid acceptance.

‘The acceptance of these concepts belongs mainly to epistemology. ... It is cer-
tain, however, that it depends to a large extent on the way one is accustomed to
think whether one is most attracted to one or another interpretation. As far as this
lecturer is concerned, he finds a certain satisfaction in the older interpretations,
according to which the aether possesses at least some substantiality, space and time
can be sharply separated, and simultaneity without further specification can be
spoken of. In regard to this last point, one may perhaps appeal to our ability of

•Sec Section 7c.

THE EDGE OF HISTORY 167

imagining arbitrarily large velocities. In that way, one comes very close to the
concept of absolute simultaneity.

‘Finally, it should be noted that the daring assertion that one can never observe
velocities larger than the velocity of light contains a hypothetical restriction of
what is accessible to us, [a restriction] which cannot be accepted without some
reservation.’

It is clear beyond doubt that Lorentz’s imagination was the classical imagina-
tion. Light moves with a velocity c km/s. There is no difficulty in imagining a
velocity equal to c -h 1 km/s. The classical mind asserts, the relativistic mind
denies, that a velocity which can be imagined mathematically can necessarily be
reached physically.

As I understand Lorentz, he was a leader in theoretical physics who fully
grasped all the physical and mathematical aspects of the special theory of relativity
but who nevertheless could not quite take leave of a beloved classical past. This
attitude has nothing to do with personality conflicts. Those were alien to him.
Einstein and Poincare always spoke in praise of him, Lorentz always reciprocated.
Nor did he hesitate to make clear where he had been in error: The chief cause of
my failure [in discovering special relativity] was my clinging to the idea that only
the variable t can be considered as the true time and that my local time t' must
be regarded as no more than an auxiliary mathematical quantity,’ he wrote in a
note added to the second edition of his Columbia lectures [L41. In a draft* of a
letter to Einstein, written in January 1915 [L5], Lorentz wrote the following
about the FitzGerald -Lorentz contraction: i added the remark that one arrives
at this hypothesis if one extends to other forces what one can already say about
the influence of a translation on electrostatic forces. If I had stressed this more,
then the hypothesis would have given much less of an impression of having been
invented ad hoc.’ Lorentz never fully made the transition from the old dynamics
to the new kinematics.**

4. Poincare and the Third Hypothesis. In April 1909 Poincare gave a series
of six lectures [P3] in Goettingen. In the last of these, entitled ‘La Mecanique
Nouvelle,’ the lecturer dealt with questions bearing on relativity. At first glance
the reader of this text may experience surprise at not finding any mention of Ein-
stein, whose theory was four years old by then. On closer scrutiny, he will find
that this absence is justified. Poincare does not describe Einstein’s theory.

The new mechanics, Poincare said, is based on three hypotheses. The first of
these is that bodies cannot attain velocities larger than the velocity of light. The
second is (I use modern language) that the laws of physics shall be the same in all
inertial frames. So far so good. Then Poincare introduces a third hypiothesis: One

*This draft was discovered in 1979 by A. Kox in one of Lorentz’s notebooks. I am grateful to Dr
Kox for drawings my attention to this text.

** According to Born, ‘Lorentz . . . probably never became a relativist at all, and only paid lip service
to Einstein at times, to avoid arguments’ {B2).

i68

RELATIVITY, THE SPECIAL THEORY

needs to make still a third hypothesis, much more surprising, much more difficult
to accept, one which is of much hindrance to what we are currently used to. A
body in translational motion suffers a deformation in the direction in which it is
displaced. . . . However strange it may appear to us, one must admit that the third
hypothesis is perfectly verified.’ It is evident that as late as 1909 Poincare did not
know that the contraction of rods is a consequence of the two Einstein postulates.
Poincare therefore did not understand one of the most basic traits of special
relativity.

Should one give Poincare the benefit of the doubt and assume that his reference
to a third hypothesis was made only for pedagogical reasons? This, I think, would
be too far-fetched. Moreover, if one rereads his earlier papers in the light of what
has just been noted, one finds a distinct similarity in the way he treats the
FitzGerald- Lorentz contraction. I repeat what Poincare said in St Louis in 1904
[P4]. On that occasion he also introduced in essence the first two postulates and
then added, ‘Unfortunately, [this reasoning] is not sufficient and complementary
hypotheses are necessary; one must assume that bodies in motion suffer a uniform
contraction in their direction of motion.’ One rereads the grand memoir in the
Rendiconti di Palermo [PI] and finds an admirable discussion of the Lorentz
transformation but no mention that these transformations imply the contraction
of rods; the emphasis in that paper is on dynamics. It is likewise the case in a
semipopular account of relativity which Poincare wrote in 1908 [P5].

My own assessment of Poincare’s contributions to relativity coincides with what
was said about him during the opening remarks of the meeting in Paris of the
Societe Fran^aise de Philosophic, referred to earlier: ‘The solution anticipated by
Poincare was given by Einstein in his memoir of 1905 on special relativity. He
accomplished the revolution which Poincare had foreseen and stated at a moment
when the development of physics seemed to lead to an impasse’ [L6].

5. Whittaker and the History of Relativity. In 1 9 1 0, Edmund Whittaker pub-
lished a book entitled History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity [ W1 ]. This
work covers the period from Descartes to the close of the nineteenth century. Col-
leagues more knowledgeable on this period than I, confirm my impression that it
is a masterpiece. Forty years later, a revised edition of this book came out. At that
time Whittaker also published a second volume dealing with the period from 1900
to 1926 [W2]. His treatment of the special theory of relativity in the latter volume
shows how well the author’s lack of physical insight matches his ignorance of the
literature. I would have refrained from commenting on his treatment of special
relativity were it not for the fact that his book has raised questions in many minds
about the priorities in the discovery of this theory. Whittaker’s opinion on this
point is best conveyed by the title of his chapter on this subject: ‘Tlie Relativity
Theory of Poincare and Lorentz.’* Bom had given Whittaker fair warning [B3].
Einstein’s reaction was, ‘I do not have to read the thing. ... If he manages to
convince others, that is their own affair’ [B4].

Whittaker’s obituary of Einstein written for the Royal Society is no work of art either ( W31.

THE EDGE OF HISTORY

i6q

6. Lorentz and Poincare. Every paper by Poincare dealing with the principle
of relativity acknowledges Lorentz’s pioneering role. In his Goettingen lectures,
Poincare called him one of the 'grands demolisseurs' of Newtonian mechanics (I
wonder if Lorentz would have agreed with that) and referred once again to his
‘very ingenious invention’ of the idea of a local time.

Conversely, Lorentz had high esteem for Poincare. In his major article of 1 904
he acknowledged the stimulus of Poincare’s criticism (expressed at the Paris Con-
gress of 1900) to the effect that too many independent hypotheses had been intro-
duced in his earlier work [L7]. Later he wrote to Poincare acknowledging receipt
of ‘the important memoir on the dynamics of the electron’ [L8]. In Volume 38 of
the Acta Mathematica, devoted in its entirety to appreciations of the late Poincare,
Lorentz gave a detailed analysis of the Palermo paper (L9) in which, incidentally,
an imaginary time coordinate {x^ = ict) is introduced for the first time. Regawding
Poincare’s contributions to the principles of relativity, Lorentz’s view is balanced,
as always. In both editions of the Columbia lectures, Poincare appears only in
connection with the stress terms he invented. In a letter to Einstein, Lorentz rem-
inisced about the origins of the special theory: ‘I felt the need for a more general
theory, which I tried to develop later [i.e., in 1904] and which you (and to a lesser
extent Poincare) formulated’ [L5].

7. Lorentz and Einstein. As Einstein told me more than once, Lorentz was
to him the most well-rounded and harmonious personality he had met in his entire
life. Einstein’s thoughts and feelings about Lorentz were a blend of respect, love,
and awe. ‘I admire this man as no other, I would say I love him,’ he wrote to
Laub in 1909 [E8]. In a letter to Grossmann, he called Lorentz ‘our greatest
colleague’ [E9]. To Lorentz himself he wrote, ‘You will surely feel that I feel an
unbounded admiration for you’ [ElOj. In a memorial service held at the Univer-
sity of Leiden shortly after Lorentz’s death, Einstein was one of the speakers: The
enormous significance of his work consisted therein, that it forms the basis for the
theory of atoms and for the general and special theories of relativity. The special
theory was a more detailed expose of those concepts which are found in Lorentz s
research of 1895’ [Ell ].

Lorentz’s life centered on Arnhem, Leiden, and Haarlem. He was forty-four
years old when he attended his first international physics conference, just across
the Dutch border. At that same age, Einstein had already lived in four countries
and had held four professorships in succession. He, the bird of passage, must at
times have been wistful about the Dutch upper-middle-class stability and serenity
of Lorentz’s existence.

Lorentz’s esteem for Einstein was extremely high as well. In Chapter 12, I
shall have more to relate about the interactions between these two men at the time
that Lorentz almost got Einstein to accept a permanent position in Holland.

8. Poincare and Einstein. Why did Poincare not mention Einstein in his
Goettingen lectures? Why is there no paper by Poincare in which Einstein and
relativity are linked? It is inconceivable that Poincare would have studied Ein-
stein’s papers of 1905 without understanding them. It is impossible that in 1909

170

RELATIVITY, THE SPECIAL THEORY

(the year he spoke in Goettingen) he would never have heard of Einstein’s activ-
ities in this area. Shall I write of petulance or professional envy? I shall not, since
my reader’s speculations are as good as my own. Could it be that Poincare had
had a mere glance at Einstein’s papers and had concluded too hastily that he knew
all that already and that there was nothing new there? Possibly. It would be nei-
ther far-fetched nor a unique occurrence. In his book The Anxiety of Influence,
Harold Bloom writes, ‘Strong poets make . . . history by misreading one another,
so as to clear imaginative space for themselves,’ and speaks of ‘strong poets, major
figures with the persistence to wrestle with their strong precursors even to the
death’ [B5].* In such respects I see little difference between strong poets and
strong creative personalities in any other domain. Poincare’s reaction to Riemann
[Kl] and Einstein’s to Hilbert (to be discussed in Chapter 14) may be cases in
point. In any event, the questions are interesting and based on fact, the answers
are beyond certain reach. In my opinion, it is more significant that Poincare until
shortly before his death remained silent about Einstein than that Einstein until
shortly before his death remained silent about Poincare. In closing the case of
Poincare and Einstein, I offer their final statements with only minor comments of
my own.

Alexander Moszkowski begins his biography of Einstein (M2) by recalling that
on October 13, 1910, Poincare gave a lecture before the Berliner Wissenscnaftliche
Verein about ‘die neue Mechanik’ (Poincare was quite comfortable with the Ger-
man language). ‘In this lecture it happened for the first time that we heard the
name Albert Einstein.’ Poincare spoke of ‘the beginning of a current which, as he
confessed, had disturbed the equilibrium of his earlier opinions.’ Alas, we are not
told in what way the speaker referred to Einstein.

Einstein and Poincare met (for the first and last time, I believe) at the first
Solvay Conference, held in Brussels in October 1911. About this encounter Ein-
stein reported as follows to a friend: ‘Poincare war (gegen die Relativitatstheorie)
einfach allgemein ablehnend, zeigte bei allem Scharfsinn wenig Verstandnis fiir
die Situation’ [El 2].** It is apparent once again that Poincare either never under-
stood or else never accepted the special theory of relativity.

Shortly thereafter, the authorities at the ETH, in the course of their prepara-
tions for offering Einstein a professorship, asked Poincare for an opinion about
him. Poincare replied, ‘Monsieur Einstein is one of the most original minds I have
known; in spite of his youth he already occupies a very honorable position among
the leading scholars of his time. We must especially admire in him the ease with
which he adapts himself to new concepts and his ability to infer all the conse-
quences from them. He does not remain attached to the classical principles and,
faced with a physics problem, promptly envisages all possibilities. This is trans-

it would like to thank Sara Pais for directing me to Bloom’s book.

**P. was simply generally antipathetic (in regard to relativity theory) and showed lillle understand-
ing for the situation despite all his sharp wit.

THE EDGE OF HISTORY

171

lated immediately in his mind into an anticipation of new phenomena, susceptible
some day to experimental verification. I would not say that all his expectations
will resist experimental check when such checks will become possible. Since he is
probing in all directions, one should anticipate, on the contrary, that most of the
roads he is following will lead to dead ends; but, at the same time, one must hope
that one of the directions he has indicated will be a good one; and that suffices’

IP6].

That, as best I know, is the single and final judgment on Einstein that Poincare
left us. Twice, having met Einstein and written this letter, did he comment on
relativity [P7, P8]. Twice did he mention Lorentz but not Einstein, though he
referred to Einstein in connection with the photo effect on the second of these
occasions. That was in an address given on April 11, 1912. He died unexpectedly
three months later.

In 1919, the mathematician Mittag-Leffler wrote to Einstein, asking him to
contribute an article to the Acta Mathematica volume in honor of Poincare [M3].
Four months later, Einstein responded. The letter had reached him after a long
delay and ‘it might be too late’ now [El 4). Mittag-Leffler replied that Einstein
could still send a paper if he cared to do so [M4]. Two and a half months later,
Einstein replied that obligations and travel prevented him from contributing, add-
ing that his decision ‘should be considered as nothing but high respect for the task’
[E14].

In December 1920, a New York Times correspondent interviewed Einstein in
his home on the Haberlandstrasse in Berlin. In reply to a question about the
origins of relativity theory, Einstein said, ‘It was found that [Galilean invariance]
would not conform to the rapid motions in electrodynamics. This led the Dutch
professor Lorentz and myself to develop the theory of special relativity . . .’ [El 5].
An additional mention of Poincare’s pioneering ideas might have been gracious.
In an interview with Le Figaro in 1921, he expressed his great admiration for
Poincare, however [El 6].

In the early 1950s, I once asked Einstein how Poincare’s Palermo paper had
affected his thinking. Einstein replied that he had never read that paper. I owned
a copy — a second-hand exemplar of the Gauthier-Villars reprint and asked if
he would like to borrow that. Yes, he said, he would. I brought it to him. It was
never returned to me. Some time after Einstein s death, I asked Helen Dukas if
she would please look for it. It had vanished. . . .

Perhaps he did read it. In 1953 Einstein received an invitation to attend the
forthcoming Bern celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of special relativity. Ein-
stein wrote back that his health did not permit him to plan such a trip. In this
letter Einstein mentions for the first time (as far as I know) Poincare’s role in
regard to the special theory: ‘Hoffentlich wird dafiir gesorgt dasz die Verdienste
von H. A. Lorentz und H. Poincare bei dieser Gelegenheit ebenfalls sachgemass
gewurdigt werden’* [E17]. The Bern conference took place shortly after Ein-

*1 hope that one will also take care on that occasion to honor suitably the merits of L. and P.

172

RELATIVITY, THE SPECIAL THEORY

stcin*s death. The task of speaking about Lorentz and Poincare fell to Born (who
had attended Poincare’s Goettingen lecture). He did not acquit himself well.**

Two months before his death, Einstein gave his fair and final judgment:
‘Lorentz had already recognized that the transformations named after him are
essential for the analysis of Maxwell’s equations, and Poincare deepened this
insight still further . . .’ [E18].

9. Coda: The Michelson-Morley Experiment. In concluding this account of
the history of special relativity, I return to its origins. Toward the end of Section
6a, I promised to comment further on Einstein’s reticence in acknowledging the
influence of the Michelson-Morley experiment on his thinking. I now do so.

In a letter to an historian, written a year before his death, Einstein expressed
himself for the last time on this subject: ‘In my own development, Michelson’s
result has not had a considerable influence. I even do not remember if I knew of
it at all when I wrote my first paper on the subject (1905). The explanation is
that I was, for general reasons, firmly convinced that there does not exist absolute
motion and my problem was only how this could be reconciled with our knowledge
of electrodynamics. One can therefore understand why in my personal struggle
Michelson’s experiment played no role, or at least no decisive role’ [El 9].

Why this need not to remember or, at best, to underplay this influence?

Just over twenty years before Einstein wrote this late letter, just under twenty
years after his creation of the special theory, he gave a lecture at Oxford entitled
‘On the Method of Theoretical Physics’ [E20), in the course of which he said, ‘It
is my conviction that pure mathematical construction enables us to discover the
concepts and the laws connecting them, which give us the key to the understanding
of the phenomena of Nature.’ It seems to me that here Einstein grossly overesti-
mates the capabilities of the human mind, even of one as great as his own. It is
true that the theoretical physicist who has no sense of mathematical elegance,
beauty, and simplicity is lost in some essential way. At the same time it is dan-
gerous and can be fatal to rely exclusively on formal arguments. It is a danger
from which Einstein himself did not escape in his later years.

The emphasis on mathematics is so different from the way the young Einstein
used to proceed. What wrought this change? Obviously, his realization that Rie-
mannian geometry lay waiting for him as he groped his way to general relativity
must have deeply affected his subsequent thinking. Could it be, however, that the
conviction expressed in Oxford had even earlier roots?

Stepping beyond the edge of history, I offer the thought that, just barely visible,
the origins of Einstein’s later attitude toward the discovery of concepts by purely
mathematical thinking may go back to 1905. The kinematic part of his June paper
has the ideal axiomatic structure of a finished theory, a structure which had

••The reasoning used by Poincari was just the same as that which Einstein introduced in his first

paper of 1905 Does this mean that Poincar6 knew all this before Einstein? It is possible . .

IB6|.

THE EDGE OF HISTORY

173

abruptly dawned on him after a discussion with Besso. Is it possible that this
experience was so overwhelming that it seared his mind and partially blotted out
reflections and information that had been with him earlier, as the result of deep-
seated desires to come closer to the divine form of pure creation? Of course that
is possible. Of course neither I nor anyone else will ever know whether it is true.
And of course Einstein could never have been of any help in flnding out.

References

Bl. H. Bergson, Bull. Soc. Fran. Phil. 22, 102 (1922).

B2. M. Born, The Born- Einstein Letters (1. Born, Tran.), p. 198. Walker and Cy,
New York, 1971.

B3. , letter to A. Einstein, September 26, 1953; [B2], p. 197.

B4. ,[B21, p. 199.

B5. H. Bloom, The Anxiety of Influence, p. 5. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1973.
B6. M. Born, Helv. Phys. Acta Suppl. 4, 244 (1956).

El. A. Einstein, Jahrb. Rad. Elektr. 4, 411 (1907).

E2. , letter to J. Stark, September 25, 1907.

E3. , letter to M. Besso, March 17, 1903; EB, p. 13.

E4. , Jahrb. Rad. Elektr. 5, 18 (1908)

E5. ,^dP23, 371 (1907).

E6. , /IdP20, 627 (1906).

E7. , PAW, 1921, p. 123. An extended version was published by Springer, Berlin,

1921.

E8. , letter to J. Laub, May 19, 1909.

E9. , letter to M. Grossmann, December 10, 1911

ElO. , letter to H. A. Lorentz, November 23, 1911.

Ell. , Math.-Naturw. Bldtt. 22, 24 (1928).

El 2. , letter to H. Zangger, November 15, 1911.

El 3. , letter to M. G. Mittag-Leffler, April 12, 1920.

El 4. , letter to M. G. Mittag-Leffler, July 21, 1920

El 5. , The New York Times, December 3, 1920.

El 6. , letter to A. Sommcrfeld, January 28, 1922. Reprinted in Albert Einstein/

Arnold Sommerjeld Briefwechsel (A. Hermann, Ed.), p. 99. Schwabe Verlag, Stutt-
gart, 1968.

El 7. , letter to A. Mercier, November 9, 1953.

El 8. , letter to C. Seelig, February 19, 1955; Se, p. 114.

El 9. , letter to F. C. Davenport, February 9, 1954.

E20. , On the Method of Theoretical Physics. Oxford University Press, Oxford,

1933.

HI. A. Herman, Sudhoffs Archiv. 50, 267 (1966).

Kl. F. Klein, Vorlesungen fiber die Entwicklung der Mathematik im 19 jahrhundert,

Vol. 1, pp. 374-80, Springer, New York, 1979.

Ll. H. A. Lorentz, Theory of Electrons (1st edn.), p. 43. Teubner, Leipzig, 1909.

L2. — , [Ll], preface.

L3. J Oas Relatwitdtspnnzip, p. 23. Teubner, Leipzig, 1920.

174

RELATIVITY, THE SPECIAL THEORY

L4. , [Lll, 2nd edn., 1915, p. 321.

L5. , draft of letter to A. Einstein, January 1915, undated.

L6. X. Leon in [Bl], p. 93.

L7. H. A. Lorentz, Proc. Roy. Soc. Amsterdam 6, 809 (1904). Reprinted in H. A.
LorentZy Collected Papers, Vol. 5, p. 172. Nyhoflf, the Hague, 1937.

L8. , letter to H. Poincare, March 8, 1906. Reprinted in A. I. Miller’s contribution

to the Proceedings of the Jerusalem Einstein Centennial Symposium, March 1979.

L9. , Acta Math. 38, 293 (1921).

Ml. H. Minkowski, AdP47, 927 (1915).

M2. A. Moszkowski, Einstein, p. 15. Fontane, Berlin, 1921-2.

M3. M. G. Mittag-Leffler, letter to A. Einstein, December 16, 1919.

M4. , letter to A. Einstein, May 3, 1920.

PI. H. Poincare, Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo, 21, 129 (1906). Reprinted in Oeuvres de
Henn Poincare, Vol. 9, p. 494. Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1954.

P2. , Arch. Neerl. 5, 252 (1900); Oeuvres, Vol. 9, p. 464. Also in Recueil de Tra-

vaux Offerts a H. A. Lorentz. NyholT, the Hague, 1900.

P3. , Sechs Vortrdge aus der Reinen Mathematik und Mathemalischen Physik.

Teubner, Leipzig, 1910.

P4. , Bull. Sci. Math. 28, 302 (1904).

P5. , Rev. Gen. Sci. 19, 386 (1908); Oeuvres, Vol. 9, p 551.

P6. , letter to a colleague at the ETH, undated, probably November 1911

P7. , Scientia 12, 159 (1912). Reprinted in Dernieres Pensees, Chap. 2. Flam-

marion, Paris, 1913.

P8. , J. de Phys. 5, 347 (1912). Reprinted Dernieres Pensees, Chap. 7.

SI. J. Stark, letter to A. Einstein, October 4, 1907, published in [HI).

Wl. E. T. Whittaker, History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity Longman,
Green, London, 1910.

W2. E. T. Whittaker, History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity, Vol. 2. Nelson
& Sons, New York, 1953.

W3. E. T. Whittaker, Biogr. Mem. Fell. Roy. Soc. 1, 37 (1955).

RELATIVITY,

THE GENERAL THEORY

‘The Happiest Thought
of my Life’

Musz es sein? Es musz sein.

The February 17, 1921, issue of Nature is almost completely devoted to relativity.
It appeared at a time when ‘in two cases predicted [by general relativity] phenom-
ena for which no satisfactory alternative explanation is forthcoming have been
confirmed by observation, and the third is still a subject of inquiry’ [LI ]. The first
two phenomena are the precession of the perihelion of Mercury and the bending
of light by the sun. Both effects had been calculated by Einstein in 1915. The first
agreed very well indeed with long-known observations. The second had waited
until 1919 for confirmation. The third was the red shift of radiation, the experi-
mental magnitude of which was still under advisement in 1921.

This issue of Nature appeared at a time when Einstein was already recognized
as a world figure, not only by the physics community but by the public at large.
Its opening article is by Einstein and begins, ‘There is something attractive in
presenting the evolution of a sequence of ideas in as brief a form as possible . . .’
[Elj. There follow papers by Dyson and Crommelin, the astronomers, by Jeans,
Lorentz, Lodge, and Eddington, the physicists, and by Hermann Weyl, the math-
ematician. Also included are the inevitable philosophical contributions. This issue
of the journal had been long in coming. The plan for it was conceived a few weeks
after the historic November 6, 1919, joint meeting of the Royal Society and the
Royal Astronomical Society in London, at which the results of the May 1919
eclipse expeditions had been reported as being in agreement with Einstein’s the-
ory. In that same month, Einstein had been approached for a contribution to
Nature [L2]. It was he who by his efforts to be ‘as brief as possible’ caused much
delay. In January 1920 his article was almost ready ‘but has become so long that
I doubt very much whether it can appear in Nature^ [F2]. It did not. His short
paper which eventually did app)ear [Elj is quite different from his original man-
uscript, entitled ‘Grundgedanken und Methoden der Relativitatstheorie in ihrer
Entwicklung dargestellt.’ That paper was never published but has survived. The

>77

178

RELATIVITY, THE GENERAL THEORY

original manuscript is now in the Pierpont Morgan Library in New York City
and in what follows is referred to as the Morgan manuscript.

It is a most interesting document. For once Einstein shares with the reader not
only his thoughts but also his feelings. At one point he explains how in 1907 the
preparation of a review article led him to ask in what way the Newtonian theory
of gravitation would have to be modified in order that its laws would fit special
relativity. ‘When, in 1907, 1 was working on a comprehensive paper on the special
theory of relativity for the Jahrbuch der Radioaktwitdt und Elektronik, I had also
to attempt to modify the Newtonian theory of gravitation in such a way that its
laws would fit in the [special relativity] theory. Attempts in this direction did show
that this could be done, but did not satisfy me because they were based on phys-
ically unfounded hypotheses.’ (More on these attempts in Chapter 13.) He goes
on as follows:

Then there occurred to me the ‘gliicklichste Gedanke meines Lebens,’ the hap-
piest thought of my life, in the following form. The gravitational field has* only
a relative existence in a way similar to the electric field generated by magne-
toelectric induction. Because for an observer falling freely from the roof of a
house there exists — at least in his immediate surroundings— no gravitational
field [his italics]. Indeed, if the observer drops some bodies then these remain
relative to him in a state of rest or of uniform motion, independent of their
particular chemical or physical nature (in this consideration the air resistance
is, of course, ignored). The observer therefore has the right to interpret his state
as ‘at rest.’

Because of this idea, the uncommonly peculiar experimental law that in the
gravitational field all bodies fall with the same acceleration attained at once a
deep physical meaning. Namely, if there were to exist just one single object that
falls in the gravitational field in a way different from all others, then with its
help the observer could realize that he is in a gravitational field and is falling
in it. If such an object does not exist, however — as experience has shown with
great accuracy — then the observer lacks any objective means of perceiving him-
self as falling in a gravitational field. Rather he has the right to consider his
state as one of rest and his environment as field-free relative to gravitation.

The experimentally known matter independence of the acceleration of fall is
therefore a powerful argument for the fact that the relativity postulate has to
be extended to coordinate systems which, relative to each other, are in non-
uniform motion.

Let us now turn to Section V of Einstein’s 1907 review article [E3], received
by the editor on December 4 of that year. It is here that he begins the long road
from the special theory to the general theory of relativity. Let us follow him on
that road, marked by trials, by errors, and by long pauses, until finally, on Novem-
ber 25, 1915, the structure of the general theory as we now know it lay before
him.

•At this point, the original text contains a few words which Einstein clearly had forgotten to delete.

‘THE HAPPIEST THOUGHT OF MY LIFE’

179

I mentioned in Chapter 7 the contributions Einstein made to special relativity
after the completion of his September 1905 paper on that subject. Some of these
sequels appeared in 1906 and early 1907. In that period he also added to his 1905
work on Brownian motion (Chapter 5). However, his main activities during that
time concerned the quantum theory. In 1906 he gave his own interpretation of
Planck s 1900 work on the quantum theory and completed the fundamental paper
on the quantum theory of the specific heats of solids (Chapters 19 and 20).

His first important paper on relativity theory after 1905 is the 1907 review.
This article was written at the request of Stark, the editor of the Jahrbuch. On
September 25, 1907, Einstein had accepted this invitation [E4]. On November 1,
Einstein further wrote to Stark: ‘I am now ready with the first part of the work
for your Jahrbuch; I am working zealously on the second [part] in my unfortu-
nately scarce spare time’ [E5]. Since this second part contains the remarks on
gravitation, it seems most probable that Einstein’s ‘happiest thought’ came to him
sometime in November 1907. We certainly know where he was when he had this
idea. In his Kyoto lecture he told the story:

I was sitting in a chair in the patent office at Bern when all of a sudden a
thought occurred to me if a person falls freely he will not feel his own weight.’
I was startled. This simple thought made a deep impression on me. It impelled
me toward a theory of gravitation. [II]

Was Einstein first drawn to gravitation because he wanted to include it in spe-
cial relativity or because he saw that he could extend special relativity with its
help? The way I read the quoted lines from the Morgan manuscript, the answer
would seem to be that, by asking for the inclusion, he at once or almost at once
came upon the extension. That is also Einstein’s own recollection, again found in
the Kyoto lecture: ‘In 1907, while I was writing a review of the consequences of
special relativity ... I realized that all the natural phenomena could be discussed
in terms of special relativity except for the law of gravitation. I felt a deep desire

to understand the reason behind this It was most unsatisfactory to me that,

although the relation between inertia and energy is so beautifully derived [in spe-
cial relativity], there is no relation between inertia and weight. I suspected that
this relationship was inexplicable by means of special relativity’ [II]. The absence
of the equation for the static Newtonian gravitational potential

= AirGp (9.1)

(where p is the matter density and G the Newtonian gravitational constant) in the
1907 review indicates that the generalization of this equation to special relativity
was not his ultimate purpose. Equation 9.1 does not appear in his papers until
February 1912 [E61, but by then he already knew that this equation is not gen-
erally true even in the static case, as we shall see in Chapter 1 1.

Three main issues are raised in Section V of the Jahrbuch article.

The Equivalence Principle, ‘Is it conceivable that the principle of relativity
slso holds for systems which are accelerated relative to each other? That is Ein-

l80 RELATIVITY, THE GENERAL THEORY

stein’s starting question, ‘which must occur to everyone who has followed the
applications of the relativity principle.’ Then he gives the standard argument. A
reference frame E, is accelerated in the x direction with a constant acceleration
7 . A second frame E 2 is at rest in a homogeneous gravitational field which imparts
an acceleration —7 in the x direction to all objects. ‘In the present state of expe-
rience, we have no reason to assume that . . . E, and E 2 are distinct in any respect,
and in what follows we shall therefore assume the complete [my italics) physical
equivalence of a gravitational field and the corresponding acceleration of the ref-
erence frame [E,]. This assumption extends the principle of relativity to the case
of uniformly accelerated motion of the reference frame.’ Einstein noted that his
review was not the place for a thorough discussion of the questions which now
arose. Nevertheless, he made a beginning by applying his new postulate to the
Maxwell equations, always for uniform acceleration. He did not raise the question
of the further extension to nonuniform acceleration until 1912, the year he first
referred to his hypothesis as the ‘equivalence principle’ [E7].

2. The Gravitational Red Shift. Many textbooks on relativity ascribe to Ein-
stein the method of calculating the red shift by means of the Doppler effect of light
falling from the top to the bottom of an upwardly accelerating elevator. That is
indeed the derivation he gave in 1911 (Chapter 11). However, he was already
aware of the red shift in 1907. The derivation he gave at that time is less general,
more tortured, and yet, oddly, more sophisticated. It deserves particular mention
because it contains the germ of two ideas that were to become cornerstones of his
final theory: the existence of local Lorentz frames and the constancy of the velocity
of light for infinitesimally small paths. The argument, restricted to small velocities,
small uniform accelerations, and small time intervals, runs as follows.

Consider two coordinate systems S (x,y^,t) and E ((yrjyCyT) which at one time
are coincident and which both have velocity = 0 (the symbols in parentheses
denote the respective space-time coordinates). At that one time, synchronize a
network of clocks in S with each other and with a similar network in E. The time
of coincidence of S and E is set at / = r “ 0 . System S remains at rest, while
E starts moving in the x direction with a constant acceleration 7 . Introduce next
a third system S' which relative to S moves with uniform velocity v

in the x direction in such a way that, for a certain fixed time t, x' = / = rj,

z:' = f . Thus, V * 7 /. Imagine further that at the time of coincidence of S' and
E all clocks in S' arc synchronized with those in E.

L Consider a time interval 6 after the coincidence of S' and E. This interval is
so small that all effects 0(6^) arc neglected. What is the rate of the clocks in S'
relative to those in E if 7 is so small that all effects 0{y^) can also be neglected?
One easily secs that, given all the assumptions, the influence of relative displace-
ment, relative velocity, and acceleration on the relative rates of the clocks in E and
S' arc all of second or higher order. Thus in the infinitesimal interval 6 , we can
still use the times of the clocks in the local Lorentz frame S' to describe the rate
of the E clocks. Therefore, ‘the principle of the constancy of the light velocity can
be . . . used for the definition of simultaneity if one restricts oneself to small light

THE HAPPIEST THOUGHT OF MY LIFE’

l8l

paths. The trick of using three coordinate systems is ingenious. On the one hand,
S and S are inertial frames and so one can use special relativity. On the other
hand, during a small time interval the measurements in S' can be identified with
those in E up to higher-order effects.

n. How do clocks in two distinct space points of E run relative to each other?
At / = r = 0, the two E clocks were synchronous with each other and with
clocks in S. The two points in E move in the same way relative to S. Therefore
the two E clocks remain synchronous relative to S. But then (by special relativity)
they are not synchronous relative to S' and thus, by (I), not synchronous relative
to each other. We can now define the time t of 11 by singling out one clock in
E — say, the one at the origin — and for that clock setting r = /. Next, with the
help of (I) we can define simultaneity in E by using S': the simultaneity condition
of events 1 and 2 in E is

VXx

(9.2)

where, again, v = yt = yr. Let 1 correspond to the origin of E and 2 to a space
point ({,0,0) where the clock reading is called a. Introduce one last approximation:
the time r of S' — E coincidence is also taken small so that 0(t^) effects are
negligible. Then X 2 - x^ = x '2 - x{ = {, ^2 = (r, so that Eq. 9.2 becomes

0 - 3 )

a formula that is found — albeit derived differently — in modern textbooks.

The application of the equivalence principle to this equation is also familiar. It
says that for a resting frame in a homogeneous gravitational field in the { direction:

<T = 1 + * ^ (9.4)

where ^ is the gravitational potential energy difference between ({,0,0) and the
origin. [Note. Here and in what follows gravitational energy always refers to unit
mass so that <l> has the dimension (velocity)l)

Einstein at once turned to the physics of Eq. 9.4: There are “clocks” which are
available at locations with distinct gravitational potential and whose rates can be
controlled very accurately; these are the generators of spectral lines. It follows
from the preceding that light coming from the solar surface ... has a longer wave-
length than the light generated terrestrially from the same material on earth.’ To
this well-known conclusion, he appended a footnote: ‘Here one assumes that [Eq.
9.4] also holds for an inhomogeneous gravitational field^ [my italics]. This assump-
tion was of cardinal importance for Einstein’s further thinking. He would explore
its further consequences in 1911.

3. MaxweWs Equations; Bending of Light; Gravitational Energy = mc^.
Indomitably Einstein goes on. He tackles the Maxwell equations next. His tools
are the same as those just described for the red shift. Again he compares the

i 82

RELATIVITY, THE GENERAL THEORY

description in S with the one in E, using the local inertial frame S' as an inter-
mediary. The steps are straightforward. I omit the details and state only his
results.

Einstein finds, first, that the Maxwell equations in E have the same form as in
S, but with the velocity of light c in S replaced by:

in E. ‘It follows from this that the light rays which do not run in the { direction
are bent by the gravitational field.’ Second, he examines the energy conservation
law in E and finds ‘a very notable result. An energy E [defined as an energy for
the case of no gravitational field) . . . contributes to the total energy an additional
position dependent amount

= (9.6)

In a gravitational field, one must associate with every energy E an additional
position-dependent energy which equals the position-dependent energy of a “pon-
derable” mass of magnitude E/c^. The law [ E = mc^\ . . . therefore holds not
only for inertial but also for gravitational mass.’

As said, the Jahrbuch article was received by the editor on December 4. On
December 24, Einstein wrote to Conrad Habicht:

At this time I am [again] busy with considerations on relativity theory in con-
nection with the law of gravitation. ... I hope to clear up the so-far unexplained
secular changes of the perihelion length of Mercury . . . [but] so far it does not
seem to work. [ES]

I own two mementos of Einstein, which I cherish. One is his last pipe. Its head
is made of clay, its stem is a reed. Helen Dukas presented it to me some time in
1955. The other is the galley proof of Appendix II, ‘Generalized Theory of Grav-
itation,’ which appeared first in the 1950 edition of his The Meaning of Relativity.
On the opening page of the proofs, the following words are written in a slightly
shaky hand: ‘Pauli: nach Einsichtnahme bitte Pais geben. A. E.,’ P.: after perusal
please give to P. I was in my thirties when that 1950 book came out. I read it then
and have reread it once every few years, always with the same thought as I turn
the pages. Does the man never stop?

Now I react similarly to the Jahrbuch article, which I first read at a later age.
This review docs not have the perfection of the 1905 paper on special relativity.
The approximations arc clumsy and mask the generality of the conclusions. Ein-
stein was the first to say so, in 1911. The conclusion about the bending of light is
qualitatively correct, quantitatively wrong — though, in 1907, not yet logically
wrong. Einstein was the first to realize this, in 1915. Despite all that, I admire

THE HAPPIEST THOUGHT OF MY LIFE’ 183

this article at least as much as the perfect relativity paper of 1905, not so much
for its details as for its courage.

Einsteins treatment of simultaneity in 1905 was the result of many years of
thinking that had led him to a new physical interpretation of global Lorentz
invariance. Only two years later, he realized that the extension of the principle of
special relativity demanded a reevaluation of the validity of this most precious tool.
In 1907, he already clearly knew that there was something amiss with this invar-
iance if his equivalence principle was to hold up in all generality. He did not
know then that Lorentz invariance was to return in a new, local version. Others
might have shied away from the equivalence principle in order to retain the global
invariance. Not so Einstein. With a total lack of fear he starts on the new road.
For the next eight years he has no choice. He has to go on. From then on also his
style changes. If the work of 1905 has the quality of Mozart, then the work of
1907-15 is reminiscent of Beethoven. The quotation at the head of this chapter is
the motto of the last movement of Beethoven's opus 135: Must it be? It must be.

References

El. A. Einstein, Nature 106, 782 (1921)

E2. , letter to R. W. Lawson, January 22, 1920.

E3. , Jahrb. Rad. Elektr. 4, 411 (1907).

E4. , letter to J. Stark, September 25, 1907, quoted in [HI].

E5. , letter to J. Stark, November 1, 1907, quoted in [HI].

E6. , /1^/P 38, 355 (1912).

E7. ,[E61,p 365.

E8. , letter to K. Habicht, December 24, 1907.

HI. A. Hermann, Sudhoff's Archiv. 50, 267 (1966).

II. J. Ishiwara, Einstein Koen-Roku. Tokyo-Tosho, Tokyo, 1977.
LI. R. W. Lawson, Nature 106, 781 (1921).

L2. , letter to A. Einstein, November 26, 1919.

Herr Professor Einstein

10a. From Bern to Zurich

Soon after December 1907 Einstein began his academic career.

His first step, then a common one, was to apply for a Privatdozentship. This
was not a faculty position and no salary was provided by a university or any other
official body. To be Privatdozent meant only to have the right to teach at the
university where one was appointed. The only remuneration was a small fee paid
by each course attendant. It used to be said often in those times that a university
career could be contemplated only if one was independently wealthy or married
to a well-to-do person. Neither applied to Einstein. That is perhaps whv nothing
had come of his earlier intent to seek such a post [El).

In 1907 he decided nevertheless to apply while retaining his position at the
patent office. On June 17 he sent a letter to the cantonal authorities in Bern
enclosing copies of his PhD thesis, of seventeen published papers (including, of
course, the harvest of 1905), and a curriculum vitae. Several faculty members
spoke in favor of the application when the matter came up for discussion.* But
rules are rules. For whatever reason, Einstein had omitted to follow the require-
ment to send along with his application a Habilitationsschrift, a not hitherto pub-
lished scientific article. Accordingly, the request was denied until such time as
Herr Einstein saw fit to produce such a document [FI]. Einstein procrastinated.
In January 1908 he wrote to Grossmann, asking him the best way to apply for
a vacant high school position: 'Can I visit there to give an oral demonstration of
my laudable personality as teacher and citizen? Wouldn’t I probably make a bad
impression (no Swiss-German, Semitic looks, etc.)? Would it make sense if I were
to extol my scientific papers on that occasion?’ (El a]. Perhaps he never applied,
perhaps he was rejected. At any rate, early in 1908 he finally produced his
Habilitationsschrift and on February 28 a letter was drawn up informing young
Doctor Einstein that his application had been accepted and that he had been
granted the venia docendi, the right to teach [F21. Einstein was for the first time
a member of the academic community.

His main job at the patent office forced him to lecture at odd hours. In the
summer semester of 1908 he taught the kinetic theory of heat on Saturday and

•The professor of experimental physics was opposed to the idea, however ( Elaj.

184

HERR PROFESSOR EINSTEIN

185

Tuesday mornings from seven to eight to an audience of three friends, including
Besso. His second and last course was given in the winter semester of 1908-9.
Each Wednesday evening from six to seven he lectured to four listeners. His sister
Maja would occasionally drop in. After two years at the University of Berlin, she
was now attending the University of Bern. It was there that on December 21,
1908, the next main academic event in the Einstein family took place. On that day
Maja received her PhD magna cum laude on a thesis in Romance languages
[Elb].

The topic of Einstein’s second course, the theory of radiation, was also the sub-
ject of his Habilitationsschrift: ‘Consequences for the Constitution of Radiation of
the Energy Distribution Law of Blackbody Radiation’ [F3]. This paper was never
published nor was its manuscript ever found. Its content may well have been
incorporated in the reports ‘On the Current Status of the Radiation Problem,’
published early in 1909 [E2], and “On the Development of Our Views Concern-
ing the Nature and Constitution of Radiation,’ which followed later that same
year [E3). These two papers are not just survey articles. They contain highly
important new physics. Forty years later, Pauli said of the second report that it
‘can be considered as one of the landmarks in the development of theoretical phys-
ics’ [PI]. In Chapter 21 I shall come back in detail to these two papers. Suffice it
to say here that they are Einstein’s most important contributions in the period
from 1908 to 1911.

The first of these two papers was completed in Bern, the second one in Zurich.
Meanwhile Einstein had obtained his first faculty post, associate professor of the-
oretical physics at the University of Zurich. It was a newly created position. There
had been no professor of theoretical or mathematical physics since Clausius had
left the university in 1867 [Rlj. The proposal to the faculty written by Alfred
Kleiner clearly shows Einstein’s rapidly growing renown: ‘Today Einstein ranks
among the most important theoretical physicists and has been recognized rather
generally as such since his work on the relativity principle . . . uncommonly sharp
conception and pursuit of ideas . . . clarity and precision of style. . . .’ [Slj.

Einstein must have been aware of this appreciation. Perhaps, also, he may have
sensed some of the following sentiments expressed in a part of the final faculty
report*: ‘These expressions of our colleague Kleiner, based on several years of
personal contact, were all the more valuable for the committee as well as for the
faculty as a whole since Herr Dr Einstein is an Israelite and since precisely to the
Israelites among scholars are ascribed (in numerous cases not entirely without
cause) all kinds of unpleasant p)eculiarities of character, such as intrusiveness,
impudence, and a shopkeeper’s mentality** in the perception of their academic
position. It should be said, however, that also among the Israelites there exist men
who do not exhibit a trace of these disagreeable qualities and that it is not proper,

*ll is, of course, highly improbable that Einstein ever saw this report.

. . Zudringlichkeit, UnverschSmtheit, Kramerhaftigkcit

i86

RELATIVITY, THE GENERAL THEORY

therefore, to disqualify a man only because he happens to be a Jew. Indeed, one
occasionally finds people also among non-Jewish scholars who in regard to a com-
mercial perception and utilization of their academic profession develop qualities
which are usually considered as specifically “Jewish.” Therefore neither the com-
mittee nor the faculty as a whole considered it compatible with its dignity to adopt
anti-Semitism as a matter of policy! and the information which Herr Kollege
Kleiner was able to provide about the character of Herr Dr Einstein has com-
pletely reassured us’ [SI a]. Opinions such as these of course do not describe just
Zurich in 1909 but western civilization in the early twentieth century.

The secret faculty vote of March 1909 on the Einstein appointment was ten in
favor, one abstention. On July 6, 1909, Einstein submitted his resignation to the
patent office. Two days later a new mark of rising eminence: the University of
Geneva bestowed on him his first honorary doctorate.* On October 15 he com-
menced his new university position; on the 22nd he, Mileva, and Hans Albert
were registered as residing at Moussonstrasse 12. That same month the new asso-
ciate professor and doctor honoris causa attended, at age thirty, his first physics
conference, at Salzburg. At this meeting he gave the report so highly praised by
Pauli. On December 11, 1909, he gave, for the first but not the last time in his
life, an inaugural address, this one entitled ‘On the Role of Atomic Theory in the
New Physics.’ Einstein’s salary in his new position was 4500 SF per annum, the
same amount he had received as a technical expert second class in Bern.

New reponsibilities awaited him: six to eight hours of teaching and seminars
per week, students to be taken care of, among them Hans Tanner, his first PhD
student, who did not get his degree with Einstein, however.** He appeared in
class in somewhat shabby attire, wearing pants that were too short and carrying
with him a slip of paper the size of a visiting card on which he had sketched his
lecture notes [S2). In his later years, Einstein used to say that he did not enjoy
teaching. ‘He [E.] obviously enjoyed explaining his ideas to others, and was excep-
tionally good at it because of his own way of thinking in intuitive and informal
terms. What he presumably found irksome was the need to prepare and present
material that was not at the moment at the center of his interest. Thus the prep-
aration of lectures would interfere with his own thought’ [S3].

In his Zurich period, from October 1909 to March 1911, Einstein published
eleven papers on theoretical physics, including the one on critical opalescence. He
also was active as an experimentalist. In his Bern days, he had published a paper
that contained the idea for an apparatus intended to measure small voltages [E4].

f‘. . . den **Antiseinitismus” als Prinzip auf ihre Fahnc zu schreiben

•Marie Curie and Ostwald were also among the recipients of honorary degrees.

••After Einstein left for Prague, Tanner went to Basel, where he got his degree in 1912. Another
student, Hermann Schuepp, was given a PhD thesis topic by Herzog before Einstein arrived at
Zurich. Einstein acted as the referee for this thesis, which was accepted by the faculty on December
21, 1909 (Dl).

HERR PROFESSOR EINSTEIN

187

In Bern he had tried to follow up experimentally on this idea in ‘a small labora-
tory for electrostatic experiments which I have concocted with primitive means’
[E5]. Einstein’s fellow Olympia member, Konrad Habicht, and the latter’s brother
Paul became interested. In the university laboratory in Zurich, they constructed
a ‘Maschinchen,’ little machine, as Einstein affectionately called his gadget. In
their paper the Habichts state that ‘the . . . experiments were [performed in col-
laboration with A. Einstein’ [HI]. Einstein followed the further development with
lively interest [E6]. (For more on the little machine, see Chapter 29.)

Einstein and his family moved to Prague in March 1911. The family was a
foursome by then. On July 28, 1910, a second son had been born to Albert and
Mileva. They named him Eduard and called him Tede or Tedel; their nickname
for the two boys was ‘die Barchen,’ the little bears. ‘Eduard inherited from his
father the facial traits and the musical talents, from his mother the tendency to
melancholy’ [S4]. In later years Eduard cared much for the arts. He wrote poetry.
He wanted to become a psychiatrist and studied medicine but did not reach his
goal. His life came to a sad end.*

10b. Three and a Half Years of Silence

Einstein first stated the equivalence principle in 1907. In 1915 he presented the
general theory of relativity as we now know it. This much I learned long ago from
Pauli’s encyclopedia article, and also that Einstein arrived at his final version
‘nach langen Irrwegen,’ after having followed wrong tracks for a long time [P2].
1 therefore imagined an Einstein engrossed in his new ideas of 1 907 and laboring
unremittingly from 1907 until 1915 to incorporate into a full-fledged theory the
generalization from invariance under uniform motion to invariance under general
motion. Not until I read his publications and especially his correspondence of that
period did I realize that I was wrong.

Einstein remained silent on gravitation from December 1907 until June 1911,
a few months after he had settled in Prague.

One can think of many reasons for this. It was an interval of conspicuous com-
motion. There was a new baby in the family. There were three career changes,
first from technical expert to Privatdozent in Bern to associate professor in Zurich
and then, as we shall see, to full professor in Prague. There was a new style of
doing physics: in collaboration, first with Laub, then with the Habicht brothers,
then with Ludwig Hopf. Lecturing took time and effort: I am very occupied with
the courses, so that my real free time is less than in Bern [E7]. All of these factors
could have contributed to digressions from the main course. It was also a p>eriod
in which Einstein experienced a rapid rise to fame and in which he established

♦Helen Dukas tells me that Einstein recognized rather early signs of dementia praecox in his
younger son. After many vicissitudes, Eduard was institutionalized in the Burgholzli Hospital in
Zurich, where he died in 1965.

i88

RELATIVITY, THE GENERAL THEORY

his first contacts with larger segments of the physics community. Such circum-
stances often lead to a slackening of creative tensions. All these events combined
might well have sufficed for others to desist from starting a truly major new pro-
gram in research. Yet, I think, all this has little if anything to do with Einstein’s
silence on gravitation.

Indeed, if he was silent on that subject, he was not silent on physics as a whole.
New research continued during the years in question. There were the papers with
Laub on special relativity, the papers with Hopf on classical radiation theory, and
the difficult paper on critical opalescence. He invented his little machine. Above
all, there were the papers on quantum physics already mentioned, highly creative
in content. All this work hardly gives the impression of a man who is sidetracked
and cannot find time for serious thinking.

There is, of course, nothing unusual about the fact that Einstein did not publish
anything new about gravitation between 1908 and 1911. It could mean simply
that he thought about the problem but did not find anything novel to communicate.
More curious is the fact that he twice gave surveys of relativity theory without
mentioning gravitation or the equivalence principle and its remarkable implica-
tions: the red shift and the bending of light. The first of these surveys was his
report at the Salzburg conference, which included a survey of relativity theory, 'of
the consequences of which I would like to mention only a single one’ [E3) (namely,
E = mc^), but quantum theory rather than relativity theory was the main issue.
The second survey was given in 1910. It is a detailed document, forty-four printed
pages long (E8]. There is no mention of relatively accelerated systems. Again this
is not too surprising. Even the special theory was still so new that it may have
seemed advisable to confine the explications to the case of uniform relative motion.

However, even such pedagogical motives fail to explain one fact which I find
truly significant. Throughout his career Einstein was accustomed to writing to one
or more colleagues or friends about scientific problems which at any given time
were important to him. With a refreshing frankness, he would share with them
not only the delights of a new insight but also the troubles of being stuck. It would
not in the least have been out of style for Einstein to write to one of his friends:
I am preoccupied with the gravitation problem, it mystifies me and I am not get-
ting anywhere. In fact, I am quite sure that he would have written in this vein if,
between 1908 and 1911, this problem had really nagged him. Yet, as far as I
know, in his scientific correspondence during this period, mention is made only
once of gravitation and the related new issues. These same letters also made clear
to me the reason for Einstein’s silence on the equivalence principle and its con-
sequences: it was not gravitation that was uppermost in his mind. It was the quan-
tum theory.

Some examples may show the intensity of Einstein’s concern with quantum
physics during that period. Sometime in 1908 he wrote to Laub, ‘I am incessantly

busy with the question of the constitution of radiation This quantum problem

is so uncommonly important and difficult that it should be the concern of every-

HERR PROFESSOR EINSTEIN

189

body. I did succeed in inventing something which formally corresponds to [a quan>
turn theory], but I have conclusive grounds to consider it nonsense’ [E9]. To Stark,
July 1909; You can hardly imagine how much trouble I have taken to invent a
satisfactory mathematical treatment of the quantum theory’ [ElOj. To Besso,
November 1909: ‘Reflected little and unsuccessfully about light-quanta’ [Ellj.
Again to Besso, one month later, he writes about attempts to modify Maxwell’s
equations in such a way that the new equations would have light-quantum solu-
tions: ‘Here perhaps lies the solution of the light-quantum problem’ [El 2]. To
Laub, that same day: “I have not yet found a solution of the light-quantum ques-
tion. All the same I will try to see if I cannot work out this favorite problem of
mine’ [El 3].* Also to Laub, March 1910: ‘I have found some interesting things
about quanta, but nothing is complete yet’ [El 4].

In the summer of 1910 Einstein wrote to Laub about his long review article
[E8]: ‘[This paper] contains only a rather broad expose of the epistemological
foundations of the relativity theory’ [El 5]. This would have been as good an
occasion as any to reflect on the new epistemology of the equivalence principle,
but Einstein does not do so. Rather he adds, a few lines later, ‘I have not come
further with the question of the constitution of light.’ In November he writes again
to Laub: ‘Currently I have great expectations of solving the radiation problem
. . .’ [El 6]. A week later, once more to Laub: ‘Once again I am getting nowhere
with the solution of the light-quantum problem’ [El 7]. In December, to Laub:
‘The enigma of radiation will not yield’ [E18]. Finally, by May 1911 he is ready
to give up for the time being; he writes to Besso: ‘I do not ask anymore whether
these quanta really exist. Nor do I attempt any longer to construct them, since I
now know that my brain is incapable of fathoming [the problem] this way’ [El 9].

One month later, in June 191 1, he was back to gravitation theory.

It would, of course, be absurd to suppose that Einstein did not think about
gravitation at all during those three and a half years. A letter he wrote to Som-
merfeld from Bern, just before taking up his post in Zurich, shows that he had
indeed done so:

‘The treatment of the uniformly rotating rigid body seems to me to be very
important because of an extension of the relativity principle to uniformly rotat-
ing systems by trains of thought which I attempted to pursue for uniformly
accelerated translation in the last section of ... my paper [of 1907]. [E20]**

That isolated remark, important as it is, does not change my opinion that Einstein
was concentrating in other directions during this period. In later years, Einstein
himself tended to be uncommunicative about his thoughts on gravitation during

*lch will schen ob ich dieses Licblingsci doch nicht ausbriilcn kann.

**Scc also [S5]. I shall return in the next chapter to the influence of the problem of rotating bodies
on Einstein’s thinking.

190

RELATIVITY, THE GENERAL THEORY

that time. In the Gibson lecture on the origins of the general theory of relativity,
given in Glasgow in June 1933, he says,

‘If [the equivalence principle] was true for all processes, it indicated that the
principle of relativity must be extended to include nonuniform motions of the
coordinate systems if one desired to obtain an unforced and natural theory of
the gravitational field. From 1908 until 1911 I concerned myself with consid-
erations of this nature, which I need not describe here’ [E21|.

In his major scientific autobiographical notes of 1949 [E22], he remains silent
about those particular years. His final autobiographical sketch, written a few
months before his death, contains the following statement: ‘From 1909 to 1912,
while I had to teach theoretical physics at the universities of Zurich and Prague,
I puzzled incessantly about the problem [of gravitation]’ [E23]. This is indeed
borne out by letters he wrote to his friends after the middle of 1911, but not by
the letters prior to that time. Indeed, it seems evident that until he reached Prague,
he considered — and, it should be said, for many good reasons — the riddles of the
quantum theory far more important and urgent than the problem of gravitation.
In sharp contrast, from then until 1916 there are only a few minor papers on the
quantum theory while his correspondence shows clearly that now the theory of
gravitation is steadily on his mind. I would not go so far as to say that this intense
preoccupation is the only reason he did not at once participate in the new quantum
dynamics initiated by Bohr in 1913. But it must have been a heavily contributing
factor.

Let us next Join Einstein in Prague.

References

Dl. C. Diir, letter to R. Jost, November 29, 1979.

El. A. Einstein, letter to M. Besso, January 1903; EB, p. 3.

El a. , letter to M. Grossmann, January 3, 1908.

Elb. M. Einstein, ‘Beitrage zur tlberlieferung des Chevaliers du Cygne und der Enfance
Godefroi,’ Druck, Erlangen, 1910.

E2. A. Einstein, Phys. Zeitschr. 10, 185 (1909).

E3. , Phys. Zeitschr. 10, 817 (1909).

E4. , Phys. Zeitschr. 9, 216 (1908).

E5. , letter to J. Stark, December 14, 1908. Reprinted in A. Hermann, Sudhoffs

Archiv. 50, 267 (1966).

E6. in EB pp. 42, 47, 464.

E7. , letter to M. Besso, November 17, 1909; EB, p. 16.

E8. , Arch. Set. Phys. Nat. 29, 5, 125 (1910).

E9. , letter to J. Laub, 1908, undated.

ElO. , letter to J. Stark, July 31, 1909. Reprinted in A. Hermann, [E5].

Ell. , letter to M. Besso, November 17, 1909; EB, p. 16.

El 2. , letter to M. Besso, December 31, 1909; EB, p. 18.

El 3. , letter to J. Laub, December 31, 1909.

HERR PROFESSOR EINSTEIN

191

E14. , letter to J. Laub, March 16, 1910.

El 5. , letter to J. Laub, Summer 1910, undated.

El 6. , letter to J. Laub, November 4, 1910.

El 7. , letter to J. Laub, November 11, 1910.

El 8. , letter to J. Laub, December 28, 1910.

E19. , letter to M. Besso, May 13, 1911; EB, p. 19.

E20. , letter to A. Sommerfeld, September 29, 1909.

E21. , 'The Origins of the General Theory of Relavility.* Wylie, Glasgow,

1933.

E22. in Albert Einstein, Philosopher -Scientist (P. A. Schilpp, Ed.). Tudor, New

York, 1949.

E23. in Helle Zeit, dunkle Zeit (C. Seelig, Ed.). Europa Verlag, Zurich, 1956.

FI. M. Fliickiger, Einstein in Bern, pp IHIT Paul Haupt Verlag, Bern, 1974.

F2. , |F1], p. 123.

F3. ,lFll,p. 118.

HI. C. and P. Habicht, Phys. Zeitschr. 11, 532 (1910).

PI. W. Pauli in Albert Einstein. Philosopher-Scientist, p 149.

P2. in Encyklopddie der Mathematische Wissenschaften, Vol. V, 2, Sec. 56.

Teubner Verlag, Leipzig, 1921.

Rl. G. Rasche and H. Staub, Viertelj. Schrift Naturf Ges. Zurich 124, 205 (1979).

51. Se, p. 166.

Sla. C. Stoll, letter to H. Ernst, March 4, 1909.

52. Se, p. 171.

53. E. G. Straus, lecture delivered at the Einstein Centennial Celebration, Yeshiva
University, September 18, 1979.

54. Se, p. 192.

55. J. Stachel in General Relativity and Gravitation, GRG Society Einstein Centennial
Volume, Vol. 1, p. 1. Plenum Press, New York, 1980.

The Prague Papers

11a. From Zurich to Prague

‘I will most probably receive a call from a large university to be full professor with
a salary significantly better than I have now. I am not yet permitted to say where
it is’ [El]. So Einstein wrote to his mother on April 4, 1910, less than half a year
after he had begun his associate professorship in Zurich. The call he expected was
supposed to come from the Karl-Ferdinand University, the German university in
Prague. He had to be discreet since the search committee convened in January
had not even made a proposal to the faculty yet. The experimentalist Anton
Lampa, committee chairman and Einstein’s strong advocate, had sounded him out
beforehand. The committee report dated April 21, 1910, proposed three candi-
dates and stated that all of them were willing to accept a formal offer. Einstein
was the first choice. This report quotes a glowing recommendation by Planck:
‘[Einstein’s work on relativity] probably exceeds in audacity everything that has
been achieved so far in speculative science and even in epistemology; non-Euclid-
can geometry is child’s play by comparison.’ Planck went on to compare Einstein
to Copernicus [HI].

The news spread. In July 1910 the Erziehungsrat (board of education) peti-
tioned the government of the Canton Zurich. It was noted that, according to
experts, Einstein was one of the few authorities in theoretical physics; that stu-
dents from the ETH were coming to the University of Zurich to attend his lec-
tures; that he was teaching six to eight hours per week instead of the customary
four to six; and that efforts should be made to keep him in Zurich. An annual
raise of 1000 SF was proposed. The petition was granted [PI ].

It would appear that Einstein was eager to go to Prague, however. In the sum-
mer of 1910 he wrote to Laub, ‘I did not receive the call from Prague, I was only
proposed by the faculty; the ministry has not accepted my proposal because of my
Semitic descent’ [E2]. (I have seen no documents to this effect.) In October he
wrote to Laub that the appointment seemed pretty certain [E3], but in December
he wrote that there had been no word from Prague yet [E4]. However, on Jan-
uary 6, 1911, His Imperial and Apostolic Majesty Franz Joseph formally
approved the appointment, effective April 1. Einstein was notified by letter, dated
January 13 [HI]. Prior to the beginning of his appointment, he had to record his
religious affiliation. The answer norie was unacceptable. He wrote ‘Mosaisch’

192

THE PRAGUE PAPERS

193

[FI]. On January 10, he sent his letter of resignation, which was accepted on
February 10 [P2]. In February Einstein visited Lorentz in Leiden. In March he
and his family arrived in Prague [Slj.

It is mildly puzzling to me why Einstein made this move. He liked Zurich.
Mileva liked Zurich. He had colleagues to talk to and friends to play music with.
He had been given a raise. He must have known that in the normal course of
events further promotion was to be expected. Prague was not an active center of
theoretical physics. However, a letter by Kleiner to a colleague may indicate that
there were other considerations. ‘After my statements about his conduct some time
ago (after which he wanted to apologize, which I once again prevented), Einstein
knows that he cannot expect personal sympathy from the faculty representatives.
I would think you may wait until he submits his resignation before you return to
this matter . . .’ [Klj. I do not know what the cause of friction was.

‘I have here a splendid institute in which I work comfortably,’ Einstein wrote
to Grossmann soon after his arrival in Prague [E5]. Ludwig Hopf, his assistant
from Zurich, had accompanied him but left soon afterward for a junior position
in Aachen. What little I know about Emil Nohel, Hopf’s successor, is found in
Chapter 29. In the summer of 1911, Besso came for a visit [E6]. In February
1912 Einstein and Ehrenfest met personally for the first time in Prague [K2].
Otto Stern availed himself of his independent means to join Einstein there, after
having received his PhD with Sackur in Breslau [S2], and stayed with Einstein
from 1912 to 1914, first in Prague, then in Zurich.

‘My position and my institute give me much joy,’ Einstein wrote to Besso, but
added, ‘Nur die Menschen sind mir so fremd,’ (Only the people are so alien to
me) [E7]. It appears that Einstein was never quite comfortable in Prague. When
he arrived at the Institute, a porter would greet him with a bow and a ‘your most
obedient servant’, a servility that did not agree with him. He was bothered by
bureaucracy. ‘Infinitely much paperwork for the most insignificant Dreck,’ he
wrote to one friend [E5] and, ‘Die Tintenscheisserei ist endlos,’ to another [E7a].
His wife was not at ease either [F2]. In Einstein’s day, there were four institutions
of higher learning in Prague, two universities and two institutes of technology, one
Czech and one German each. As Stern later recalled: ‘At none [of these
institutions] was there anyone with whom Einstein could talk about the matters
which really interested him . . . he was completely isolated in Prague . . .’ [Jl].

Einstein’s stay in Prague lasted sixteen months. Ehrenfest was his first choice
as his successor. This proposal came to naught because of Ehrenfest s refusal to
state a religious affiliation [K3]. Eventually Philipp Frank was named to this post
on Einstein’s recommendation. Frank stayed in Prague until 1938.* In the next
chapter I shall describe Einstein’s return to Zurich. First, however, let us have a
look at his physics during the Prague period.

*Sce Frank’s biography [FI] for other details about Einstein’s Prague period.

194

RELATIVITY, THE GENERAL THEORY

11b. 1911. The Bending of Light is Detectable

Do not Bodies act upon Light at a distance, and by their action
bend its Rays; and is not this action (caetens paribus) strongest
at the least distance?

ISAAC newton: Opticks, Query 1

Einstein finally broke his silence about gravitation in June 1911 [E8]. He had
become dissatisfied with his presentation of 1907 [E9]. ‘More than that, I now
realize that one of the most important consequences of those considerations is ame-
nable to experimental verification.’ This is the bending of light. He had already
been aware of this phenomenon in 1907. However, at that time he had thought
only of terrestrial experiments as a means of its observation and had concluded
that these would be too hard to perform (still true to this day). Meanwhile it had
dawned on him that deflection of light by the sun could be detectable. He also had
other new conclusions to report.

The resulting paper, ‘On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of
Light,’ is included in Das Relativitdtspnnzip, which first appeared in 1913, a
handy little book (English translation, [LI]). Its later editions contain contribu-
tions to relativity theory by Lorentz, Minkowski, Einstein, and Weyl. The book
has two flaws. First, there is no contribution by Poincare. Poincare’s memoir of
1905 is lengthy and does not readily fit into this small volume. However, a frag-
ment could easily have been included, especially since one of Lorentz’s papers does
appear in abridged form. A second shortcoming of the book is the absence of the
brief Section V of Einstein’s 1907 article [E9]. Either this piece should have been
included along with his 1911 article or else both should have been omitted, since
the finer points of the 1911 paper cannot be understood without the approxima-
tions he had used in 1907.

In the 1911 paper Einstein cautioned his readers, ‘Even if the theoretical foun-
dation is correct, the relations derived here are valid only in first approximation,’
but did not add an explicit statement about the nature of this approximation. He
had yet to acquire the skill of reiterating conclusions from his own earlier work.

This is not surprising. Prior to Einstein’s involvement with gravitation, each
one of his papers is transparent and self-contained (with the possible exception of
his earliest writing on the foundations of statistical mechanics) though his readers
may occasionally have to go to some effort to realize that. We have seen on various
earlier occasions that Einstein did not go to great trouble to search the literature
for contributions by others, but that was no particular hindrance to an understand-
ing of what he himself had to communicate. Of course, he would return now and
then to a subject he had discussed earlier, but then the new contribution would
2 ^ain be self-contained. We know that sometimes he had thought long and hard
before gaining a new insight, as in the case of special relativity. Yet little if any
sign of the preceding struggle is found in the resulting papers, which rather give
the impression of a man hugely enjoying himself. From 1907 until 1916, this light

THE PRAGUE PAPERS

195

touch and this element of closure is missing. His style of writing changes. Instead
of statements made with characteristic finality, we find reports on work in
progress.

Turning to the first of the Prague papers, I should evidently begin with the
approximations to which Einstein referred. His problem was and remained to find
a way to give meaning to simultaneity for the case of uniformly accelerated sys-
tems. To this end, he used once again the approximate methods of 1907. Thus in
191 1 the three coordinate systems S, E, and S' discussed in Chapter 9 reappear.*
Recall that E is in constant acceleration relative to S and that the inertial frame
S' is at one, and only one, time coincident with E. As indicated earlier, the strategy
was to relate the clocks in S' to those in S by a Lorentz transformation and then,
for a tiny time interval, to identify the clock readings in S' with those in E. This
is not a rigorous procedure, as we saw in Chapter 9. The approximations
explained there are the ones that also apply to the paper now under consideration.

In 1911 the four main issues were the same as in 1907: the equivalence prin-
ciple, the gravity of energy, the red shift, and the bending of light. The main
equations in these two papers are also nearly all identical. However, Einstein now
had new thoughts about each one of these four questions.

THE EQUIVALENCE PRINCIPLE

Let the frame S be at rest and let it carry a homogeneous gravitational field in the
negative z direction. E is a field-free frame that moves with a constant acceleration
relative to S in the positive ^ direction. Einstein first reminds the reader of the
equivalence of Newton’s mechanical laws in both frames. Then he rephrases this
principle as follows. ‘One can speak as little of the absolute acceleration of the
reference frame as one can of the absolute velocity in the ordinary [special] rela-
tivity theory’ (his italics). From this he concludes that ‘according to this theory,
the equal fall of all bodies in a gravitational field is self-evident' (my italics).

This seemingly innocent new twist is typical. Einstein had the gift of learning
something new from ancient wisdom by turning it around. In the present instance,
instead of following the reasoning — experimentally known equal time of fall
meaninglessness of constant absolute acceleration — he reverses the direction of the
arrow of logic. Thus in 1911 we discern the first glimpses of the new Einstein
program: to derive the equivalence principle from a new theory of gravitation.
This cannot be achieved within the framework of what he called the ordinary
relativity theory, the special theory. Therefore one must look for a new theory not
only of gravitation but also of relativity. Another point made in this paper likewise
bears on that new program. ‘Of course, one cannot replace an arbitrary gravita-

*In the 1911 paper, Einstein denotes the frames S, E, and S' by K, K', and K^,, respectively. For
ease of presentation, I continue to use his earlier notation

196

RELATIVITY, THE GENERAL THEORY

tional field by a state of motion without gravitational field, as little as one can
transform to rest by means of a relativity transformation all points of an arbitrarily
moving medium.’ This statement would continue to be true in the ultimate general
theory of relativity.

Einstein concluded his comments on the equivalence principle by stressing
again the great heuristic significance of the assumption that it is true for ail phys-
ical phenomena rather than for point mechanics only.

THE GRAVITY OF ENERGY; THE RED SHIFT

In 1907 Einstein had noted that an electromagnetic field is the source not only of
inertial energy but also of an equal amount of gravitational energy (Chapter 9).
He had reached this conclusion by studying the structure of the Maxwell equa-
tions in the frame E. He was now ready to elaborate on this result, but without
recourse to anything as specific as the electromagnetic origins of the energy in
question. His new and broader view was based on general considerations regard-
ing conservation laws. Consider (he said) the energy increase by an amount E of
an arbitrary body. According to the sp)ecial theory, there is a corresponding
increase E/c^ of its inertial mass. This leads to the ‘so satisfactory’ conclusion that
the law of conservation of mass merges with the law of conservation of energy.
Suppose now (he continues) that there were no corresponding increase of the grav-
itational mass of the body. Then one would have to maintain a separate conser-
vation law of gravitational mass while, at the same time, there would no longer
exist a separate conservation law for inertial mass. ‘This must be considered as
very improbable.’ Not only the very existence of the equivalence principle but also
the gravitational properties of energy point to the incompleteness of the special
theory: ‘The usual relativity theory [by itself] yields no argument from which we
might conclude that the weight of a body depends on its energy content.’ However,
this dependence on energy can be derived in a rather general way if, in addition,
we invoke the equivalence principle. ‘We shall show . . . that the hypothesis of the
equivalence of the systems [S and Ej yields the gravity of energy as a necessary
consequence. Then he gives the following argument. (At this point the reader may
like to refresh his memory concerning the coordinate systems described in Chapter

9.)

Let there be a light receiver S, in the origin of the frame E and an emitter at a
distance h along the positive ^ axis, also in E. The emitter S 2 emits an amount Ej
of radiation energy at just that moment in which the frame S' is coincident with
E. The radiation will arrive at S, approximately after a time h/c. At that time,
S, has the velocity yh/c relative to S', 7 being the acceleration of E. Recall that
clocks in E arc Judged by using the inertial frame S'. Einstein could therefore use
a result of his 1905 paper on special relativity [ElOj: the energy £, arriving at S,
is larger than £ 2 -

THE PRAGUE PAPERS

197

£, = E ,(^\ + 0 = £,(^1 + (11.1)

Now go to the frame S with its gravitational field. In that frame, we install the
same equipment S, and S 2 in the same relative positions as in E. Then Eq. 1 1.1
and the equivalence principle yield

£, = £, + 4(02-<^.) (11-2)

where 0i and 02 ^he gravitational potential at positions 1 and 2, respectively.
This is the energy conservation law for the transmission process. It implies that
to an energy E there corresponds a gravitational mass the desired result.

Next Einstein treated the red shift in a similar way. First work in E. Let the
light emitted at S 2 have the frequency 1 / 2 - After having traveled the approximate
time h/c, this light is received at S, with frequency v^. To find the connection
between V 2 work in S'. Then the well-known linear Doppler eflfect formula

gives

V, = Vj^l + (11.3)

The equivalence principle tells us what happens in S:

''l = ^2^1 + 0 = 02 ~ 01 {11-4)

Assume that this equation also holds for inhomogeneous fields. Let 2 be the sun
and 1 the earth. Then 0 is negative. A red shift is seen on earth such that ^v/v
« 10 -^

I next interrupt the discussion of the Prague paper in order to make two com-
ments. First, Einstein derives Eq. 1 1.2 for the energy shift; then he starts ‘all over
again’ and derives the frequency shift (Eq. 1 1.4). It is no accident, I am sure, that
he did not derive only one of these equations and from there go to the other one
with the help of

E^hi^ (11.5)

He had had something to do with Eq. 11.5. It cannot have slipped his mind; the
quantum theory never slipped his mind. However, it was Einstein s style forever
to avoid the quantum theory if he could help it — as in the present case of the
energy and the frequency shift. In Chapter 26 1 shall come back to discuss at some
length this attitude of his, a main clue to the understanding of his destiny as a
physicist.

Second, in good texts on general relativity the red shift is taught twice. In a first
go-around, it is noted that the red shift follows from special relativity and the

198

RELATIVITY, THE GENERAL THEORY

equivalence principle only. Then, after the tensor equations of general relativity
have been derived and the equivalence principle has been understood to hold
strictly only in the small, the red shift is returned to and a proof is given that it is
sufficient for the derivation of the previous result to consider only the leading
deviations of ^44 from its flat-space- time value. If the text is modern enough, one
is treated next to the niceties of second-order effects and to the extreme cases where
expansions break down. All this should be remembered in order to grasp better
Einstein’s plight in 1911. He knows that special relativity is to be incorporated
into a more profound theory, but he does not know yet how to do that. With care
he manipulates his three coordinate systems in order to obtain Eqs. 1 1 .1 - 1 1 .4. He
knows very well that these equations are approximations, but he does not know
to what.

THE BENDING OF LIGHT

What and how can we measure? That prime question of science has a double
entendre. First of all it means. What is conceptually interesting and technically
feasible? Taken in that sense, Einstein’s remarks on the red shift and the deflection
of light had given direction to the phenomenology of general relativity even before
that theory existed. The question has also a second meaning. What is a meaning-
ful measurement as a matter of principle? Also in that sense Einstein had con-
tributed by his re-analysis of simultaneity in 1905. In 1907 the study of the Max-
well equations in accelerated frames had taught him that the velocity of light is
no longer a universal constant in the presence of gravitational fields. When he
returned to this problem in 1911 he left aside, once again, these earlier dynamic
considerations. Instead, he turned to the interpretation of Eq. 1 1.4.

‘Superficially seen, [this equation] seems to slate something absurd. If light is
steadily transmitted from S 2 to Sj, then how can a different number of periods per
second arrive at Sj than were emitted in S 2 ? The answer is simple, however.’ The
apparent trouble lay not with the number of periods but with the second: one must
examine with the greatest care what one means by the rate of clocks in an inho-
mogeneous gravitational field. This demands an understanding of the following
three facts of time.

The Clock Factory. One must first construct ‘gleich beschaffene Uhren,’ iden-
tically functioning clocks, to use Einstein’s language. He does not state how this
is done. However, his subsequent arguments make sense only if the following
procedure is adopted. Construct a clock factory in a (sufficiently small) region of
space in which the gravitational field is constant. Synchronize the clocks by some
standard procedure. Transport these clocks, one of them (U,) to a position 1,
another one (Uj) to a position 2 , etc.

Local Experiments. Observe the frequency of a spectral line generated at 1
with the clock U,. Call this frequency KEl) (produced at 1 , measured with U,).

THE PRAGUE PAPERS

199

Next determine K2,2), the frequency of the same* spectral line produced at 2,
measured with U 2 . One will find (Einstein asserts) that p(1,1) = p( 2,2), ‘the fre-
quency is independent of where the light source and the [local] clock are placed.’

[Remark. This statement is not true in all rigor: even though we still cannot
calculate the displacement of spectral lines caused by local external gravitational
fields (we have no theory of quantum gravity!), we do know that such a displace-
ment must exist; it should be small within our neighborhood.]

Global Experiments. Determine p( 2,1), the frequency of the same spectral
line produced at 2 but now measured at 1 with U,. As Eq. 11.4 implies, p(2,1)
^ p(l,l). Yet, Einstein insists, we should continue to accept the physical criterion
that the number of wave crests traveling between 2 and 1 shall be independent of
the absolute value of time. This is quite possible since ‘nothing forces us to the
assumption that the [“gleich beschafTene”] clocks at different gravitational poten-
tials [i.e., at 1 and at 2] should run equally fast.’ (Recall that the synchronization
was achieved in the factory.)

The conclusion is inevitable: the compatibility of Eq. 11.4 with the physical
criterion implies that the clock U 2 in 2 runs slower by a factor (1+0/ c^) than
U, in 1. This is, of course, compatible with u(2,2) = v(\,\) since the spectral
frequency in 2 also decreases by the same factor. After all, the spectral line is
nothing but a clock itself. In other words, as a result of the transport to places of
different gravitational field strength, clocks become ‘verschieden beschaffen,’ dif-
ferently functioning. This leads to a ‘consequence of . . . fundamental significance’:

c, = ^2(^1+ (11-6)

where Cj and Ci are the local light velocities at 1 and 2 (the difference between C\
and C 2 is assumed to be small, so that the symbol c in Eq. 11.6 may stand for
either c, or C 2 ). Thus Einstein restored sanity, but at a price. ‘In this theory the
principle of the constancy of light velocity does not apply in the same way as in
... the usual relativity theory.’

The final result of the paper is the application of Eq. 1 1.6 to the deflection of
a light ray coming from ‘infinity’ and moving in the field of a gravitational point
source (i.e., a 1/r pK)tential). From a simple application of Huyghens principle,
Einstein finds that this ray when going to ‘infinity’ has suffered a deflection a
toward the source given (in radians) by

a = ^ (11.7)

where G is the gravitational constant, M the mass of the source, A the distance
of closest approach, and c the (vacuum) light velocity. For a ray grazing the sun.

* I trust that the term the same will not cause confusion.

200

RELATIVITY, THE GENERAL THEORY

A « 7 X 10’° cm, M « 2 X 10'^ g, and a = 0^87 (Einstein found 0^83). This
is the answer to which four years later he would supply a further factor of 2.

The paper ends with a plea to the astronomers: ‘It is urgently desirable that
astronomers concern themselves with the question brought up here, even if the
foregoing considerations might seem insufficiently founded or even adventurous.’

From this time on, Einstein writes to his friends of his hopes and fears about
gravitation, just as we saw him do earlier about the quantum theory. Shortly after
he completed the paper discussed above, he wrote to Laub:

The relativistic treatment of gravitation creates serious difficulties. I consider it
probable that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light in its custom-
ary version holds only for spaces with constant gravitational potential. [Ell]

Evidently he did not quite know yet what to believe of his most recent work.
However, he was certain that something new was needed. A few months later, he
wrote to his friend Heinrich Zangger, director of the Institute for Forensic Med-
icine at the University of Zurich: ‘Just now I am teaching the foundations of the
poor deceased mechanics, which is so beautiful. What will her successor look like?
With that [question] I torment myself incessantly’ [El 2).

I conclude this section by paying my respects to the German geodete and astron-
omer Johann Georg von Soldner, who in 1801 became the first to answer New-
ton’s query on the bending of light [S3]. ‘No one would find it objectionable, I
hope, that I treat a light ray as a heavy body. . . . One cannot think of a thing
which exists and works on our senses that would not have the property of matter,’
Soldner wrote.* He was motivated by the desire to check on possible corrections
in the evaluation of astronomical data. His calculations are based on Newton’s
emission theory, according to which light consists of particles. On this picture the
scattering of light by the sun becomes an exercise in Newtonian scattering theory.
For small mass of the light-particles, the answer depends as little on that mass as
Einstein’s wave calculation depends on the light frequency. Soldner made the scat-
tering calculation, put in numbers, and found a = 0^84!!

In 191 1 Einstein did not know of Soldner’s work. The latter’s paper was in fact
entirely unknown in the physics community until 1921. In that turbulent year,
Lenard, in one of his attempts to discredit Einstein, reproduced part of Soldner’s
paper in the Annalen der Physik [L21, together with a lengthy introduction in
which he also claimed priority for Hascnohrl in connection with the mass-energy
equivalence.** Von Laue took care of Lenard shortly afterward [L3].

*I have seen not his original paper but only an English translation that was recently published
together with informative historical data [J2).

**See Section 7b.

THE PRAGUE PAPERS

201

lie. 1912. Einstein in No Man’s Land

Another eight months passed before Einstein made his next move in the theory of
gravitation. A scientific meeting at Karlsruhe, summer lectures at Zurich, and a
few minor papers kept him busy in the meantime. But principally he was once
again otherwise engaged by the quantum theory. This time, however, it was not
so much because that seemed the more compelling subject to him. Rather he had
taken on the obligation to prepare a major report on quantum physics for the first
Solvay Congress (October 30 to November 3, 1911). ‘I am harassed by my drivel
for the Brussels Congress,’ he wrote to Besso [El 3]. He did not look forward to
the ‘witches’ sabbath in Brussels [E14].

He found the congress interesting and especially admired the way in which
Lorentz presided over the meetings. ‘Lorentz is a marvel of intelligence and fine
tact. A living work of art! He was in my opinion still the most intelligent one
among the theoreticians present’ [El 2]. He was less impressed with the outcome
of the deliberations: ‘ ... but no one knows anything. The whole affair would
have been a delight to Jesuit fathers’ [E12]. The congress gave the impression of
a lamentation at the ruins of Jerusalem’ [El 5]. Obviously, these were references
to the infringements of quantum physics on classically conditioned minds. Einstein
gave the final address at the congress. His assigned subject was the quantum the-
ory of specific heats. In actual fact, he critically discussed all the problems of quan-
tum theory as they were known to exist at a time when the threats and promises
of the hydrogen atom were yet to be revealed. I shall return to this subject in
Chapter 20. As to Einstein’s contribution, drivel it was not.

Then, in rapid succession, Einstein readied two papers on gravitation, one in
February 1912 [E16] and one in March 1912 [EIT] (referred to in this section as
I and II, respectively). These are solid pieces of theoretical analysis. It takes some
time to grasp their logic. Yet these 1912 papers give the impression less of finished
products than of well-developed sketches from a notebook. Their style is irresolute.
The reasons for this are clear. In 1907 and 1911 Einstein had stretched the kine-
matic approach to gravitation to its limits. This time he embarked on one of the
hardest problems of the century: to find the new gravitational dynamics. His first
steps are taken gingerly.

These are also the last papers in which time is warped but space is flat. Already,
for the first time in Einstein’s published work, the statement appears in paper I
that this treatment of space

is not obviously permissible but contains physical assumptions which might
ultimately prove to be incorrect; for example, [the laws of Euclidean geometry)
most probably do not hold in a uniformly rotating system in which, because of
the Lorentz contraction, the ratio of the circumference to the diameter should
be different from ir if we apply our definition of lengths.

202

RELATIVITY, THE GENERAL THEORY

All the same, Einstein continued to adhere to flat space. It is perhaps significant
that, immediately following the lines just quoted, he continued, ‘The measuring
rods as well as the coordinate axes are to be considered as rigid bodies. This is
permitted even though the rigid body cannot possess real existence.’ The sequence
of these remarks may lead one to surmise that the celebrated problem of the rigid
body in the special theory of relativity stimulated Einstein’s step to curved space,
later in 1912.*

It would be as ill-advised to discuss these papers in detail as to ignore them
altogether. It is true that their particular dynamic model for gravitation did not
last. Nevertheless, these investigations proved not to be an idle exercise. Indeed,
in the course of his ruminations Einstein made a number of quite remarkable
comments and discoveries that were to survive. I shall display these in the remain-
der of this chapter, labeling the exhibits A to F. However, in the course of the
following discussion, I shall hold all technicalities to a minimum.

Einstein begins by reminding the reader of his past result that the velocity of
light is not generally constant in the presence of gravitational fields:

A. ‘ ... this result excludes the general applicability of the Lorentz
transformation.’

At once a new chord is struck. Earlier he had said (I paraphrase), ‘Let us see
how far we can come with Lorentz transformations.’ Now he says, ‘Lorentz trans-
formations are not enough.’

B, ‘If one does not restrict oneself to (spatial] domains of constant c, then the
manifold of equivalent systems as well as the manifold of the transformations
which leave the laws of nature unchanged will become a larger one, but in turn
these laws will be more complicated’ [!!].

Let us next unveil Einstein’s first dynamic Ansatz for a theory of gravitation,
to which he was led by Eq. (1 1.6). He begins by again comparing a homogeneous
field in the frame S(Ac,y,z,0 with the accelerated frame E(^,T;,f,T).** For small r
— terms O(r^) are neglected — he finds

ac ,

x = ^ + —T y = 1 ) e = f t = CT (11.8)

and the important relation

(11.9)

in which is fixed by the speed of the clock at the origin of E; is the accel-
eration of this origin relative to S. Thus Ac = 0 in 2. By equivalence Ac = 0 in
S (the A’s are the respective Laplacians). ‘It is plausible to assume that [Ac = 0]

•This point of view has been developed in more detail by Stachel |S4).

••I use again the notations of Chapter 9, which are not identical with those in I. In the frame S, the
light velocity is taken equal to unity.

THE PRAGUE PAPERS

203

is valid in every mass-free static gravitational field.’ The next assumption concerns
the modification of this equation in the presence of a density of matter p:

Ac = kcp (11.10)

where A is a constant. The source must be static; The equations found by me
shall refer only to the static case of masses at rest’ [El 8].

This last remark, referring to the gravitational field equation, does not preclude
the study of the motion of a mass point under the action of the external static field
c. This motion (Einstein finds) is given by

where = x^. For what follows, it is important to note in what sense this equa-
tion satisfies the equivalence principle: if c is given by Eq. 11.9, then Eq. 11.11
can be transformed to a force-free equation in the accelerated frame E.

Einstein derived Eq. 11.11 in I by a method which need not concern us. It is
quite important, on the other hand, to note a comment he made about Eq. 11.11
in a note added in proof to paper II. There he showed that this equation can be
derived from the variational principle:

6 f = 0 (1 1-12)

^ds^ = c^de - dx^ - dy^ - dz^ (11.13)

Earlier, Planck had applied Eq. 11.12 to special relativistic point mechanics [P3],
where, of course, c in Eq. 11.13 is the usual constant light velocity in vacuum.
Einstein was stirred by the fact that Eqs. 11.12 and 11.13 still apply if c is a static
field!

C. ‘Also, here it is seen — as was shown for the usual relativity theory by
Planck— that the equations of analytical mechanics have a significance which far
exceeds that of the Newtonian mechanics.’

It is hard to doubt that this insight guided Einstein to the ultimate form of the
mechanical equations of general relativity, in which Eq. 11.12 survives, while Eq.
11.13 is generalized further.

Pap)er II is largely devoted to the question of how the electromagnetic field
equations are affected by the hypothesis that c is a field satisfying Eq. 11.6. The
details are of no great interest except for one remark. The field c, of course, enters
into the Maxwell equations. Hence, there is a coupling between the gravitational
field and the electromagnetic field. However, the latter is not static in general,
whereas the gravitational field is static by assumption. Therefore [the equations]
might be inexact . . . since the electromagnetic field might be able to influence the
gravitational field in such a way that the latter is no longer a static field.

It is conceivable that some of my readers, upon reflecting on this last statement,
may ask the same question I did when I first read paper II. What possessed Ein-

204

RELATIVITY, THE GENERAL THEORY

Stein? Why would he ever write about a static gravitational field coupled to a
nonstatic Maxwell field and hope to make any sense? I would certainly have asked
him this question, were it not for the fact that I never laid eyes on these papers
until many years after the time I knew him. I can offer nothing better than the
reply I imagine he might have given me.

The time is about 1950. Einstein speaks: ‘Ja, wissen Sie, that time in Prague,
that was the most confusing period in my life as far as physics was concerned.
Before I wrote down my equation Ac = Aep, I had, of course, thought of using
the Dalembertian instead of the Laplacian. That would look more elegant. I
decided against that, however, because I already knew that gravitation would have
to lead me beyond the Lorentz transformations. Thus I saw no virtue in writing
down Dc = kep^ since Lorentz invariance was no longer an obvious criterion to
me, especially in the case of the dynamics of gravitation. For that reason, I never
believed what Abraham and others were doing at that time. Poor Abraham. I did
not realize, I must admit, that one can derive an equation for a time-dependent
scalar gravitational field that does satisfy the weak equivalence principle. No, that
has nothing to do with the wrong value for the perihelion obtained from a scalar
theory. That came some years later. I thought again about a scalar theory when
1 was at first a bit overawed by the complexity of the equations which Grossmann
and I wrote down a little later. Yes, there was confusion at that time, too. But it
was not like the Prague days. In Zurich I was sure that I had found the right
starting point. Also, in Zurich I believed that I had an argument which showed
that the scalar theory, you know, the Nordstrom theory, was in conflict with the
equivalence principle. But I soon realized that I was wrong. In 1914 I came to
believe in fact that the Nordstrom theory was a good possibility.

‘But to come back to Prague. The only thing I believed firmly then was that
one had to incorporate the equivalence principle in the fundamental equations.
Did you know that I had not even heard of the Eotvos experiments at that time?
Ah, you knew that. Well, there I was. There was no paradox of any kind. It was
not like the quantum theory in those days. Those Berlin experiments on blackbody
radiation had made it clear that something was badly amiss with classical physics.
On the other hand, there was nothing wrong with the equivalence principle and
Newton’s theory. One was perfectly compatible with the other. Yet I was certain
that the Newtonian theory was successful but incomplete. I had not lost my faith
in the special theory of relativity either, but I believed that that theory was likewise
incomplete. So what I did in Prague was something like this. I knew 1 had to start
all over again, as it were, in constructing a theory of gravitation. Of course, New-
tonian theory as well as the special theory had to reappear in some approximate
sense. But I did not know how to proceed. I was in no-man’s land. So I decided
to analyze static situations first and then push along until inevitably I would reach
some contradictions. Then I hoped that these contradictions would in turn teach
me what the next step might be. Sehen Sie, the way I thought then about New-
tonian theory is not so different from the way I think now about quantum

THE PRAGUE PAPERS

205

mechanics. That, too, seens to me to be a naive theory, and I think people should
try to start all over again, first reconsidering the nonrelativistic theory, just as I
did for gravitation in Prague. . . .’*

Here my fabrications end. I novy^ return to the 1912 papers in order to add three
final exhibits.

The inclusion of electromagnetism forced Einstein to generalize the meaning of
p in Eq. 11.10, since the electromagnetic energy has a gravitating mass equivalent:

D. The source of the gravitational field had to be ‘the density of ponderable
matter augmented with the [locally mLasured] energy density.’

Applied to a system of electrically-charged particles and electromagnetic fields,
this would seem to mean that p should be replaced by the sum of a ‘mechanical’
and an electromagnetic term. Einstein denoted this sum by the new symbol (t.
However, a paradox arose. On closer inspection, he noted that the theory does not
satisfy the conservation laws of energy and momentum, ‘a quite serious result
which leads one to entertain doubt about the admissibility of the whole theory
developed here.’ However, he found a way in which this paradox could be
resolved.

E. ‘If every energy density . . . generates a (negative) divergence of the lines of
force of gravitation, then this must also hold for the energy density of gravitation
itself.’ This led him to the final equation for his field c:

k\ ca

2 k c

(11.14)

He went on to show that the second term in the brackets is the gravitational field
energy density and that the inclusion of this new term guaranteed validity of the
conservation laws. From then on, he was prepared for a nonlinear theory of the
gravitational field!

It had been a grave decision to make this last modification of the c-field equa-
tion, Einstein wrote, ‘since [as a result) I depart from the foundation of the uncon-
ditional equivalence principle.’ Recall the discussion following Eq. 11.9: it was
that equation and the equivalence principle which had led him to Ac = 0 in the
source-free case. This same reasoning does not apply to Eq. 11.14 with g = 0!
What was the moral?

F. It seems that [the equivalence principle] holds only for infinitely small
fields. . . . Our derivations of the equation of motion of the material point and
of the electromagnetic [ field] are not illusory since [ Eqs. 11.8 and 11.9 were]
applied only to infinitely small space domains.

This is the dawn of the correct formulation of equivalence as a principle that holds
only locally.

*Thc references to other physicists in this piece of fiction have their basis in reality, as will become
clear in later chapters.

206

RELATIVITY, THE GENERAL THEORY

Let US summarize the Prague papers.* By the spring of 1912, Einstein knew
of the red shift and the deflection of light. He had realized that the Lorentz trans-
formations are not generally applicable, that a larger invariance group was
needed, and that the laws of physics would have to be correspondingly more com-
plicated. From the study of a primitive scalar model field theory, his attention had
been drawn to the generality of the variational principle dfds = 0 for mechanical
systems. He understood that the sources of the gravitational field were not just
ponderable matter but also field energy. He realized that gravitational field energy
is to be included as a source and that the gravitational field equations were there-
fore bound to be nonlinear. He saw that the equivalence principle apparently held
only locally. As yet, he had no theory of gravitation. But he had learned a lot of
physics.

References

El. A. Einstein, letter to Pauline Einstein, April 4, 1910.

Ela. , letter to M. Besso, March 6, 1952; EB, p. 464.

E2. , letter to J. Laub, summer 1910, undated.

E3. , letter to J. Laub, October 11, 1910.

E4. , letter to J. Laub, December 28, 1910.

E5. , letter to M. Grossmann, March 1911.

E6. , letter to H. Zangger, August 24, 1911.

E7. , letter to M. Besso, May 13, 1911; EB, p. 19.

E7a. , letter to A. Stern, March 17, 1912.

E8. , ^dP35, 898 (1911).

E9. , Jahrb. Rad. Elektr. 4, 411 (1907).

ElO. , AdP 17, 891 (1905), Sec. 8.

Ell. , letter to J. Laub, August 10, 1911.

El 2. , letter to H. Zangger, November 16, 1911.

E13. , letter to M. Besso, September 11, 1911; EB, p. 26.

E14. , letter to M. Besso, September 21, 1911; EB, p. 32.

E15. , letter to M. Besso, December 26, 1911; EB, p. 40.

E16. , .4dP38, 355 (1912).

E17. , 38, 443 (1912).

E18. , letter to P. Ehrenfest, June 7, 1912.

El 9. , Viertelj. Schrift Ger. Medizin, 44, 37 (1912).

FI. P- Frank, Albert Einstein, Setn Leben und Seine Zeit, p. 137, Vieweg, Braun-
schweig, 1979.

F2. ,(Fl],p. 169.

HI. J. Havranck, Acta Univ. Carolinae 17, 105 (1977).

Jl. R. Jost, Viertelj. Schrift. Naturf Ges. Zurich 124, 7 (1979).

J2. S. Jaki, Found. Phys. 8, 927 (1978).

*A short third paper on the c-ficld theory, also written in Prague (El 9), will be discussed later.

the PRAGUE PAPERS

207

Kl. A. Kleiner, letter to an unidentified colleague, January 18, 1911. The original is
in the Staatsarchiv des Kantons Zurich

K2. M. J. Klein, Paul Ehrenfest, Vol. 1, p. 176 North Holland, Amsterdam, 1970.
K3. ,[K2],p. 178.

LI. H. A. Lorentz, A. Einstein, H. Minkowski, and H. Weyl, The Principle of Rela-
tivity (W. Perrett and G. B. Jeffery, Trans.). Dover, New York.

L2. P. Lenard, AdP 65, 593 (1921).

L3. M. von Laue, AdP^S, 283 (1922).

PI. Protokoll des Regierungsrates, No. 1226, July 14, 1910.

P2. Protokoll des Regierungsrates, No. 247, February 10, 1911.

P3. M. Planck, Verh. Deutsch. Phys. Ges 8, 136 (1906).

51. Se, p. 204.

52. O. Stern, see Biogr. Mem. Nat. Ac. Sci. 43, 215 (1973).

53. J. G. von Soldner, Berliner Astr. Jahrb., 1804, p 161.

54. J. Stachel in General Relativity and Gravitation, GRG Society Einstein Centennial
Volume, Vol. 1, p 1. Plenum Press, New York, 1980.

The Einstein-Grossmann
Collaboration

In memoriam: Marcel Grossmann

12a. From Prague to Zurich

Grossmann appeared in previous chapters as the helpful fellow student who made
his course notes available to Einstein, as the helpful friend who together with his
father paved the way for Einstein’s appointment at the patent office in Bern, and
as the friend to whom Einstein dedicated his doctoral thesis. It is now time to get
better acquainted with him.

Grossmann, a descendant of an old Swiss family, was born in 1878 in Budapest,
where his father was employed. He spent his first fifteen years there, then went
to Switzerland, where he finished high school. Thereupon he studied at the ETH
from 1896 to 1900, together with Einstein. During the next seven years, he taught
high school, first in Frauenfeld and then in Basel. In that period he finished his
thesis, ‘On the Metrical Properties of Collinear Structures,’ which earned him his
doctoral degree at the University of Zurich, and published two geometry books for
high school students and three papers on non-Euclidean geometry, his favorite
subject. These papers contain very pretty planimetric constructions which, we are
told, were praised by one no less than Hilbert [SI]. After a six-year pause, he
published another four papers on related subjects in the years 1910-12. He pre-
sented one of these at the fifth international congress of mathematicians in Cam-
bridge, England, in August 1912 [Glj. The mentioned papers are his entire sci-
entific output prior to the collaboration with Einstein, which began a few months
after the Cambridge conference. Evidently none of his prior research had any
bearing on differential geometry or tensor analysis.

Grossmann had meanwhile joined the mathematics faculty at the ETH in
Zurich, first as a stand-in and then, in 1907, as a full professor of geometry. Soon
thereafter, he began to organize summer courses for high school teachers. In 1910
he became one of the founders of the Swiss Mathematical Society. The next year
he was appointed dean of the mathematics- physics section of the ETH.

One of the first acts of the uncommonly young dean was to sound out Einstein

208

THE EINSTEIN-GROSSMANN COLLABORATION

209

as to whether he might be interested in returning to Zurich, this time to the ETH.
Grossmann’s letter is lost but not Einstein’s reply: ‘I am certainly prepared in
principle to accept a teaching position at your [ETH], I am extraordinarily happy
about the prospect of returning to Zurich. This prospect has led me in recent days
not to accept a call which reached me [from] the University of Utrecht’ [Elj. A
positive outcome of Grossmann’s initiative appeared to be assured. Speedy action
was called for, however. Einstein was now in great demand. The offer from
Utrecht, made by Willem Julius, ‘one of the most original exponents of solar phys-
ics’ [E2], was only the first of several he received in 1911 and 1912. None of these
swayed him. Zurich was where he wanted to be. Even before any official action
had been taken, he telegraphed Zangger, ‘Habe Grossmann zugesagt,’ Have said
yes to G. [E3]. Zangger himself wrote to the authorities, urging quick action,
especially because he had heard that an offer from Vienna might be forthcoming
[S2]. Einstein also wrote to Zangger of an offer (which he declined) to lecture at
Columbia University in New York in the fall of 1912 |E4].

On January 23, 1912, the ETH authorities sent their recommendation for a
ten-year appointment [S3] to the federal Department of the Interior. It included
recommendations from Marie Curie (‘one is entitled to have the highest hopes for
him and to see in him one of the first theoreticians of the future’) and from Poin-
care (already mentioned in Chapter 8). The authorities quickly accepted the pro-
posal, and on February 2 Einstein could write to Alfred Stern, ‘Two days ago I
received the call from the [ETH] (halleluia!) and have already announced here
my k. k.* departure’ [E5]. And so, in the fall of 1912, Einstein began the next
phase of his academic career.

It was to last for only three semesters. Berlin was beckoning even before he
arrived in Zurich. In the spring of 1912, Emil Warburg, the eminent director of
the Physikalisch Technische Reichsanstalt, asked him to join the staff of his insti-
tute. The formalities concerning the Zurich appointment had been completed by
then. The offer from Vienna also came through after the ETH decision had been
made. ‘I declined to take anything into consideration until I had settled in Zurich,
Einstein wrote to Zangger, whom he had informed of the Berlin and Vienna over-
tures [E6].

There was one man who at that time came close to changing Einstein’s mind
and perhaps his destiny: Lorentz. During the Solvay conference in October 1911,
Lorentz asked Einstein what the prospects were of his coming to Utrecht [LI].
Perhaps it was not clear to Einstein whether Lorentz would actually have liked
to see a foreigner occupy the chair in Utrecht. At any rate, upon his return to
Prague he wrote to Lorentz, ‘I write this letter to you with a heavy heart, as one
who has done a kind of injustice to his father . . .’ and added, ‘If I had known that
you wanted me to go to Utrecht then I would have gone’ [E7]. Lorentz replie

*k. k. . kaiscrlich und koniglich - imperial and royal, the adjectives referring to the Austro-
Hungarian empire.

210

RELATIVITY, THE GENERAL THEORY

that Einstein should accept his post in Zurich cheerfully and in good spirits [LI].
Soon thereafter, Lorentz the father figure spoke again. On February 29, 1912,
Einstein wrote to Zangger, ‘I was called to Leiden by Lorentz to be his successor.
It was good that I was already committed to Zurich, for, if not, I would have had
to go there’ [E8]. The Leiden position went to Ehrenfest, who took over in the fall
of 1912. Some time in 1913 Einstein sent Ehrenfest a letter which must often have
given its recipient food for thought: ‘When Lorentz called me at that time I expe-
rienced an undeniable shudder’ [E9].

12b. From scalar to tensor

In August 1912, Einstein and his family arrived back in Zurich. On the tenth of
that month they were officially registered as residents of an apartment at Hof-
strasse 116. Some time between August 10 and August 16, it became clear to
Einstein that Riemannian geometry is the correct mathematical tool for what we
now call general relativity theory. The impact of this abrupt realization was to
change his outlook on physics and physical theory for the rest of his life. The next
three years were the most strenuous period in his scientific career.

In order to appreciate what happened in August 1912, it is essential to know
that before his arrival in Zurich Einstein had already concluded that the descrip-
tion of gravitation in terms of the single scalar c-field of the Prague days had to
go and that a new geometry of physical space -time was needed. I am convinced
that he arrived in Zurich with the knowledge that not just one but ten gravitational
potentials were needed. This opinion is based on some remarks in Einstein’s
papers; on a study of all the letters from the period March- August 16, 1912,
which are in the Einstein archives in Princeton; and on recollections by myself
and by Ernst Gabor Straus, Einstein’s assistant from 1944 to 1948, of conversa-
tions with Einstein.

To begin with, let us recall that the second of the 1912 papers discussed in the
previous chapter [ElO] was completed in March. Toward the end of that month,
Einstein wrote to Besso, ‘Recently, I have been working furiously on the gravi-
tation problem. It has now reached a stage in which I am ready with the statics.
I know nothing as yet about the dynamic field, that must follow next. . . . Every
step is devilishly difficult’ [Ell].* Yet his initial response to the finished part, the
static case, was strongly positive. From Prague he wrote to Ehrenfest, ‘The inves-
tigations on the statics of gravitation are ready and satisfy me very much. I really
believe I have found a piece of truth. I am now thinking about the dynamic case,
one again going from the special to the general’ [E12]. This undated letter was
certainly written in 1912 and most probably before the middle of May, since by
that time, Einstein had become less assured. On May 20 he wrote to Zangger,
The investigations on gravitation have led to some satisfactory results, although

*Thif important letter is not contained in the EB volume of their correspondence.

the EINSTEIN-GROSSMANN COLLABORATION

211

until now I have been unable to penetrate beyond the statics of gravitation’ [El 3].
Soon thereafter, there are hints of difficulties: The further development of the
theory of gravitation meets with great obstacles’ ( . . . stosst auf grosse Hinder-
nisse) [EH]. This undated letter to Zangger also contains a reference to von
Laue’s discovery of X-ray diffraction. Since Einstein wrote congratulations to von
Laue in June [El 5], it is most probable that the letter to Zangger was written in
that same month. Another letter, certainly written in June, contains a similar com-
ment: The generalization [of the static case] appears to be very difficult’ [El 6].
These repeated references to his difficulties are never accompanied by expressions
of doubt about his conclusions concerning the red shift and the bending of light.
He never wavered in his opinion that these phenomena were to be part of the
future physics. For example, he wrote in June, ‘What do the colleagues say about
giving up the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light? Wien tries to help
himself by questioning the gravitational [action of] energy. That, however, is
untenable ostrich politics’ [El 6]. It is my understanding that Einstein was sure he
was moving in the right direction but that he gradually came to the conviction that
some essential theoretical tools were lacking.

There is a brief and cryptic statement in the last paper Einstein wrote in
Prague, in July, which indicates that he was onto something new. This paper (a
polemic against Abraham to which I shall return later) contains the following
phrase: ‘The simple physical interpretation of the space-time coordinates will
have to be forfeited, and it cannot yet be grasped what form the general space-
time transformation ecfuations could have [my italics]. I would ask all colleagues
to apply themselves to this important problem!’ [E17]. Observe the exclamation
mark at the end of this sentence. I do not know how often such a symbol is found
in Einstein’s writings, but I do know that it occurs only rarely.

On August 10, as said, Einstein registered as a Zurich resident. On August 16,
he writes a letter to Hopf. Gone are the remarks about devilish difficulties and
great obstacles. Instead, he writes, ‘Mit der Gravitation geht es glanzend. Wenn
nicht alles triigt habe ich nun die allgemeinsten Gleichungen gefunden’ [El 8].*

What happened in July and early August 1912?

Two statements by Einstein tell the story. In his Kyoto address (December
1922), he said, ‘If all [accelerated] systems are equivalent, then Euclidean geom-
etry cannot hold in all of them. To throw out geometry and keep [physical] laws
is equivalent to describing thoughts without words. We must search for words
before we can express thoughts. What must we search for at this point? This
problem remained insoluble to me until 1912, when I suddenly realized that
Gauss’s theory of surfaces holds the key for unlocking this mystery. I realized that
Gauss’s surface coordinates had a profound significance. However, I did not know

•‘It is going splendidly with gravitation. If it is not all deception, then I have found the ^ost gener^
equations.’ One EinstL biographer wn,te general for most general [S4], a nontrivial modification
of this crucial phrase.

212

RELATIVITY, THE GENERAL THEORY

at that time that Riemann had studied the foundations of geometry in an even
more profound way. I suddenly remembered that Gauss’s theory was contained
in the geometry course given by Geiser when I was a student. ... I realized that
the foundations of geometry have physical significance. My dear friend the math-
ematician Grossmann was there when I returned from Prague to Zurich. From
him I learned for the first time about Ricci and later about Riemann. So / asked
my friend whether my problem could be solved by Riemann s theory [my italics],
namely, whether the invariants of the line element could completely determine the
quantities I had been looking for’ [II ].

Regarding the role of Carl Friedrich Geiser,* it is known that Einstein attended
at least some of Geiser’s lectures [K2|. Toward the end of his life, he recalled his
fascination with Geiser’s course [S5] on ‘Infinitesimalgeometrie’ [E19]. Gross-
mann’s notebooks (preserved at the ETH) show that Geiser taught the Gaussian
theory of surfaces.

I believe that this first encounter with differential geometry played a secondary
role in Einstein’s thinking in 1912. During long conversations with Einstein in
Prague, the mathematician Georg Pick expressed the conjecture that the needed
mathematical instruments for the further development of Einstein’s ideas might
be found in the papers by Ricci and Levi-Civita [Flj. I doubt that this remark
made any impression on Einstein at that time. He certainly did not go to the
trouble of consulting these important papers during his Prague days.

Einstein’s second statement on the July- August period was made in 1923: i
had the decisive idea of the analogy between the mathematical problem of the
theory [of general relativity] and the Gaussian theory of surfaces only in 1912,
however, after my return to Zurich, without being aware at that time of the work
of Riemann, Ricci, and Levi-Civita. This [work] was first brought to my attention
by my friend Grossmann when I posed to him the problem of looking for generally
covariant tensors whose components depend only on derivatives of the coefficients
[g^] of the quadratic fundamental invariant [g^dx^dx^Y (my italics) [E20].

We learn from these two statements that even during his last weeks in Prague
Einstein already knew that he needed the theory of invariants and covariants
associated with the differential line element

ds" = g^^dx^dx^ ( 12 . 1 )

in which the ten quantities g^, are to be considered as dynamic fields which in
some way describe gravitation. Immediately upon his arrival in Zurich, he must
have told Grossmann of the problems he was struggling with. It must have been
at that time that he said, 'Grossmann, Du musst mir helfen, sonst werd’ ich ver-
riickt!’ [K2], G., you must help me or else I’ll go crazy! With Grossmann’s help.

•Geiser was a competent and influential mathematician who did much to raise the level of the math-
ematics faculty at the ETH |K1). His successor was Hermann Weyl.

THE EINSTEIN-GROSSMANN COLLABORATION

213

the great transition to Riemannian geometry must have taken place during the
week prior to August 16, as is indicated by Einstein’s letter to Hopf.

These conclusions are in harmony with my own recollections of a discussion
with Einstein in which I asked him how the collaboration with Grossmann began.

I have a vivid though not verbatim memory of Einstein’s reply: he told Grossmann
of his problems and asked him to please go to the library and see if there existed
an appropriate geometry to handle such questions. The next day Grossmann
returned (Einstein told me) and said that there indeed was such a geometry, Rie-
mannian geometry. It is quite plausible that Grossmann needed to consult the
literature since, as we have seen, his own field of research was removed from
differential geometry.

There is a curiously phrased expression of thanks to Grossmann which, I
believe, comes close to confirming this recollection of mine. It is found at the end
of the introduction to Einstein’s first monograph on general relativity, written in
1916: ‘Finally, grateful thoughts go at this place to my friend the mathematician
Grossmann, who by his help not only saved me the study of the relevant mathe-
matical literature but also supported me in the search for the field equations of
gravitation’ [E21].

Finally, there is a recollection which I owe to Straus [86], who also remembers
that Einstein was already thinking about general covariance when he met Gross-
mann. Einstein told Grossmann that he needed a geometry which allowed for the
most general transformations that leave Eq. 12.1 invariant. Grossmann replied
that Einstein was looking for Riemannian geometry. (Straus does not recall that
Einstein had asked Grossmann to check the literature.) But, Grossmann added,
that is a terrible mess which physicists should not be involved with. Einstein then
asked if there were any other geometries he could use. Grossmann said no and
pointed out to Einstein that the differential equations of Riemannian geometry
are nonlinear, which he considered a bad feature. Einstein replied to this last
remark that he thought, on the contrary, that was a great advantage. This last
comment is easily understood if we remember that Einstein’s Prague model had
taught him that the gravitational field equations had to be nonlinear since the
gravitational field necessarily acts as its own source (see Eq. 11.14).

Having discussed what happened in July and early August 1912, 1 turn to the
question of how it happened. Einstein gave the answer in 1921.

The decisive step of the transition to generally covariant equations would cer-
tainly not have taken place [had it not been for the following consideration].
Because of the Lorentz contraction in a reference frame that rotates relative to
an inertial frame, the laws that govern rigid bodies do not correspond to the
rules of Euclidean geometry. Thus Euclidean geometry must be abandoned if
noninertial frames are admitted on an equal footing. [E22]

Let us pursue Einstein’s ‘decisive step’ a little further.

In June Einstein had written to Ehrenfest from Prague, ‘It seems that the

214

RELATIVITY, THE GENERAL THEORY

equivalence [principle] can hold only for infinitely small systems [and] that there-
fore Bom’s accelerated finite system cannot be considered as a static gravitational
field, that is, it cannot be generated by masses at rest. A rotating ring does not
generate a static field in this sense, although it is a field that does not change with
time. ... In the theory of electricity, my case corresponds to the electrostatic field;
on the other hand, the general static case would, in addition, include the analog
of a static magnetic field. I am not that far yet. The equations found by me must
refer only to the static case of masses at rest. Born’s field of finite extension does
not fall in this category. It has not yet become clear to me why the equivalence
principle fails for finite fields (Born)’ [E23].* Einstein was not the greatest expert
in following the scientific literature, but he apparently did know Born’s main
paper of 1909 on the relativistic treatment of rigid bodies [Bl]. At the Salzburg
conference in the fall of 1909, Born’s presentation of his work on the rigid body
[B2] immediately preceded Einstein’s own report on the constitution of radiation
[E25], and it is known that the two men used that occasion for private discussions
on scientific topics of so much common concern [B3]. In June 1912 Einstein was
brooding over Bom’s earlier work, as his letter to Ehrenfest shows. I find this
fascinating since Bom’s formalism of 1909 manifestly has Riemannian traits! It
seems sufficiently interesting to explain how this came about.

The two main points of Bom’s work are (1) to define rigidity as a limiting
property of a continuously deformable medium (ignoring all aspects of its atomic
constitution) and (2) to define rigidity only as a differential, not as a global, prop-
erty. Bom considered first the case of nonrelativistic Newtonian mechanics. Let
(i = 1,2,3) denote the cartesian coordinates of some point in the medium at the
time t = 0. The distance ds between two points and at f = 0 is given

= (12.2)

Let Af‘({',ri be the coordinates at time t of the point that was at at / = 0. Follow
the so-called Lagrangian method, in which the functions x' are used to describe
the history of every particle of the fluid [L2]. At t, the distance ds between two
infinitesimally close points is given by ds^ = T,{dx*y, Since

= ( 12 - 3 )

*In a short paper entitled *Does There Exist a Gravitational Action Analogous to the Electrodyn-
amic Induction Effect?* (E24], published in the Quarterly for Forensic Medicine, Einstein briefly
pursued the electromagnetic analogy mentioned in his letter to Ehrenfest. This uncommon choice of
journal was made in order to contribute to a Festschrift for Zangger. It may also indicate that Ein-
stein felt less than secure about his results.

the einstein-grossmann collaboration

215

we have

Y.Pkki,t)dedi‘ (12.4)

*;-l

P«(W=L^^«. (12.5)

The pu are in general time-dependent fields which satisfy pu(^yO) = 5*^. In the
Newtonian case, Born’s infinitesimal rigidity condition is given by dpjdt = 0.
This is an invariance condition: ds^ remains the same at all times and has forever
the magnitude given by the Euclidean expression (Eq. 12.2).

Born attempted next to generalize from the Newtonian to the special relativistic
case by means of a ‘relativistic Lagrangian method.’ Instead of the he intro-
duced x*‘ — ict (f* = icT is the proper time) and we have

(12.6)

The Minkowskian line element

ds^ =

(12.7)

becomes, when expressed in Lagrangian coordinates.

ds^ = ZA^{^)d^‘‘d?

(12.8)

Consider those world points which are simultaneous as seen by an observer mov-
ing with four-velocity with the volume element d^^: u^dl^'dx^/d^" = 0. Use
this relation to eliminate dl^ from Eq. 12.8. Then Eq.12.8 can be written in the
form of Eq. 12.4 with the rigidity condition dpjdr = 0. Ehrenfest [E26] and
Herglotz [HI] noted that Born’s relativistic local rigidity criterion for a volume
element of a body in general motion can be phrased as follows. Relative to an
observer at rest, that volume element suffers a Lorentz contraction corresponding
to the instantaneous velocity of the center of that volume element. For our pur-
poses, it is of no relevance to discuss the paradoxes to which this approach gives
rise for the case of a finite body — the case to which Einstein referred in his June
7 letter to Ehrenfest. The interested reader can find more on this subject in Pauli’s
encyclopedia article [PI ].

Born’s reasoning can be transcribed as follows. In the Newtonian case, intro-
duce a three-dimensional manifold on which Eq. 12.4 defines a Riemannian met-
ric. The transformations (Eq. 12.3) are point transformations linear m the differ-
entials which leave d^ invariant. The p„ are determined by the dynamics that
governs the motions of the medium. Generalize to four dimensions.

I now return to Einstein. In his papers, he remained silent on the speafic prob-

2i6

RELATIVITY, THE GENERAL THEORY

lem of the rigid body until 1916 [E27J. Could it be, however, that Born’s formal-
ism had given him the inspiration for general covariance?

However this may be, after his first dicussions with Grossmann, Einstein had
found the correct starting point for general relativity. The real work could now
begin. Hard days lay ahead. In October Einstein wrote to Sommerfeld;

At present I occupy myself exclusively with the problem of gravitation and now
believe that I shall master all difficulties with the help of a friendly mathema-
tician here. But one thing is certain, in all my life I have labored not nearly as
hard, and I have become imbued with great respect for mathematics, the subtler
part of which I had in my simple-mindedness regarded as pure luxury until
now. Compared with this problem, the original relativity is child’s play. [E28)

12c. The collaboration

The Einstein-Grossmann paper (referred to here as EG), published in 1913
[E29), contains profound physical insight into the nature of measurement, some
correct general relativistic equations, some faulty reasoning, and clumsy notation.

First some remarks about the notation. The concepts of covariant and contra-
variant tensors are introduced, but all tensor indices are written as subscripts. For
example, the covariant metric tensor is denoted by its contravariant counter-
part by 7 ^. In 1914 Einstein abandoned this miserable notation. ‘Following Ricci
and Levi-Civita, we denote the contravariant character in such a way that we
place the index in the upper position’ [ESO]. Even then he excluded the coordinate
diflferentials dx** from this rule. Nor does EG contain the modern convention that
summation over repeated indices is automatically understood. This rule was intro-
duced in 1916 — by none other than Einstein himself [E311. Later he said in jest
to a friend, ‘I have made a great discovery in mathematics; I have suppressed the
summation sign every time that the summation must be made over an index which

occurs twice ’ (K2]. I do not believe it will serve the reader if I push historical

accuracy to the point of adhering to the EG notations. Instead, I shall transcribe
the EG equations into their modem form by adopting the notations and conven-
tions of Weinberg’s book on gravitation and cosmology [Wl]. All technicalities
that can be covered by a reference to that text will be omitted.

In EG, Einstein expresses his indebtedness to Mach for inspiring some of his
ideas. Comments on the influence of Mach on Einstein, an imprtant subject in
its own right, will be deferred till Chapter 15.

As we have seen, the equivalence principle in its primitive form (equality of
gravitational and inertial mass for a material object) was Einstein’s guide ever
since 1907. It is characteristic, because of his limited acquaintance with the liter-
ature, that only five years later would he become aware of the precision measure-
ments of Roland the Baron Eotvos of Vasarosnameny that showed the high degree
of accuracy of the equality of inertial and gravitational mass. He discussed the

THE EINSTEIN-GROSSMANN COLLABORATION

217

Eotvos experiments for the first time in EG, concluding that ‘the physical identity
of gravitational and inertial mass . . . possesses a high degree of probability.’*

After these prefatory remarks, I turn to Grossmann’s contribution to EG. ‘Ein-
stein grew up in the Christoffel- Ricci tradition,’ Christian Felix Klein wrote in
his history of mathematics in the nineteenth century [K3]. This masterwork
explains how from a mathematical point of view general relativity may be consid-
ered as one of the culmination points in a noble line of descendance starting with
the work of Carl Friedrich Gauss, moving on to Georg Friedrich Bernhard Rie-
mann, and from there to Elwin Bruno Christoffel, Gregorio Ricci-Curbastro,
Tullio Levi-Civita, and others. I hope my readers will derive the same enjoyment
as I did in reading these original papers as well as Klein’s history. I would further
recommend the essays by Dirk Struik on the history of differential geometry [S7].
I restrict my own task to explaining how Einstein ‘grew up.’ The two principal
references in Grossmann’s contribution to EG are the memoir ‘On the Transfor-
mation of Homogeneous Differential Forms of the Second Degree’ by Christoffel
[Cl], written in Zurich in 1869, and the comprehensive review paper of 1901 on
the ‘absolute differential calculus’ [R2] by Ricci and his brilliant pupil Levi-
Civita.

Grossman’s contribution consists of a lucid exposition of Riemannian geometry
and its tensor calculus. In addition, he gives mathematical details in support of
some of Einstein’s arguments. He begins with a discussion of the invariance of the
line element (Eq. 12.1) under the transformation

dx*" = a*", dx"

gu. =

(12.9)

( 12 . 10 )

Then follow the defmilions of tensors, the principal manipulations of tensor alge-
bra (as in [W31), the use of the metric tensor to relate covariant and contravariant
tensors, and the description of covariant differentiation ( Erweiterung ). Recall
that the covariant derivative of 3 contravariant vector V“ is given by

= ^ + (12.11)

dx^

where the affine connection (‘Christolfel Drei-Indizes Symbol’) IX. is a nontensor
given by [W4]

1 ■. f I ^

2^ dx’

( 12 . 12 )

'For an account of the precursors of Faitvos and of the latter s experiments, «e | W^|

.ion of improved results of more recent vintage, s« the papers by D.cke and collaborators 1R1| and

by Braginskii and Panov (B4].

2i8

RELATIVITY, THE GENERAL THEORY

Of particular interest for EG is the covariant divergence of a second-rank tensor
[W5],

(12.13)

where

^ = - del g„

(12.14)

For a symmetric V we have:

(12.15)

a relation that Einstein used in the discussion of energy -momentum conservation.
As a further instance of covariant differentiation, the equation

= 0 (12.16)

should be mentioned [W6]. This is one of the relations that threw Einstein off the
track for some time.

Grossmann devotes a special section to antisymmetric tensors. He notes that
Eq. 12.13 implies that

K = if (12.17)

He also points out that ^/Vg is a contravariant fourth-rank tensor derived
from the Levi-Civita symbol ^ = -f If—l) if a0yS is an even (odd) permuta-
tion of 0123, zero otherwise.* As a result

= (12.18)

is a tensor, the dual of Fyt.

Grossmann’s concluding section starts as follows. ‘The problem of the formu-
lation of the differential equations of a gravitation field draws attention to the
differential invariants . . . and . . . covariants of ... ds^ =* g^,dx''dx\' He then
presents to Einstein the major tensor of the future theory: the ‘Christoffel four-
index symbol,’ now better known as the Riemann-Christoffel tensor [W7]:

*For defimtenen, ^ is defined in a locally cartesian system where 0 denotes the time direction, 123
the space directions.

the EINSTEIN-GROSSMANN COLLABORATION

219

From this tensor ‘it is . . . possible to derive a second-rank tensor of the second
order [in the derivatives of the Ricci tensor:

apX apx

Having come this close, Grossmann next makes a mistake to which I shall return
in the course of describing Einstein’s contributions to EG, a topic which should
be prefaced by stating Grossmann’s agreement with Einstein. ‘With pleasure, he
[G.] was ready to collaborate on this problem under the condition, however, that
he would not have to assume any responsibility for any assertions or interpreta-
tions of a physical nature’ [E32].

Einstein begins by stating his desideratum: to generalize the theory of relativity
in such a way that his earlier result on the variability of the light velocity in an
inhomogeneous static gravitational field [E33] shall be contained as a special case.
Without preliminaries, he turns at once to the demand of general covariance: the
motion of a mass point shall be determined by Eqs. 11.12 and 12.1, which I copy:

5 [ = 0 ( 12 . 21 )
= g^^dx^dx' ( 12 . 22 )

These equations shall be invariant under the transformations (Eqs. 12.9 and
12.10), and ds^ shall be an ‘absolute invariant.’ Then he goes on to state the prin-
ciple of equivalence as we know it today: there is a special transformation of the
type (Eq. 12.9):

dx*^ = fljdf (12.23)

that brings the quadratic form (Eq. 12.22) locally on principal axes:
ds^ =

»?.1 = n 22 = = -noo = 1 V = ('2.25)

This local coordinate frame in which the gravitational field has been transformed
away acts as a free-falling infinitesimal laboratory. Time and space measurements
can be performed locally in this frame by the same methods used in the special
theory of relativity.* It follows that in terms of the general dxT, as m Eq. 12.22,
‘the corresponding natural distance can be determined only when the g which
determine the gravitational field are known. ... The gravitational field influences
the measuring bodies ... in a definite way.’ With these words, he states the broad
program of the general theory of relativity.

•The specifications of the actual ™ds and clocks suited for this purp^ are “ IMl' ^
author must confess to an occasional doubt as to whether thts pro em as as y
Stood on the atomic and subatomic levels.

220

RELATIVITY, THE GENERAL THEORY

Einstein uses Eqs. 12.21 and 12.22 to discuss the properties of the energy and
momentum of a matter distribution with mass m ( m being ‘a characteristic con-
stant independent of the gravitational potential’). In particular he derives the
expression

dx^ dx''
ds ds

(12.26)

for the energy- momentum tensor of pressureless matter, where po = m/Vo and
Vq = d^ is the rest-volume element of the material distribution. His next advance
is made with the help of Grossmann’s Eq. 12.15. He conjectures that the energy-
momentum conservation laws must be of the generally covariant form

(12.27)

in which the second term expresses the action of the gravitational field on matter.
The geodesic equation of motion

d^x^ _ dx^ dx*

= 0

(12.28)

\dr = gn^dx^'dx^y^^ is the proper time) for a particle with nonvanishing mass
is not found in EG (Einstein first derived this equation in 1914). It is important
to note this absence, since the two authors experienced some difficulty in recog-
nizing the connection between their work and the Newtonian limit. For later pur-
poses, it is helpful to recall how this limit is found for the equation of motion (Eq.
12.28) [W8]: (1) neglect dx/dr relative to dt/dr (slow motion); (2) put dg^/dt
= 0 (stationarity); (3) write

= V + (12.29)

and retain only first-order terms in (weak-field approximation). Then one
obtains the Newtonian equation

X = - (12.30)

where 0 = — h(xj/2 is the Newtonian potential, so that

^00 = -d + 20) (12.31)

Nevertheless, though the discussion of the motion of matter was not complete,
all was going well so far, and the same continued to be true for electrodynamics.
Indeed, EG contains the correct generally covariant form of the Maxwell
equations:

1 d

THE EINSTEIN-GROSSMANN COLLABORATION

221

0 (12J3)

(see Eqs. 12.17 and 12.18). There remained the last question: what are the field
equations of gravitation itself? Einstein guessed correctly that ‘the needed gener-
alization [of the Newtonian equations) should be of the form

kS^ = r,, (12.34)

where . . . is a . . . tensor of the second rank which is generated by differential
operations from the fundamental tensor g^^.’

Then the trouble began.

12d. The Stumbling Block

Clearly, Einstein and Grossmann were in quest of a tensor F^ of such a kind that
the Newton -Poisson equation

A</) = 47rGp (12.35)

would emerge as a limiting case. This, Einstein said, was impossible as long as
one requires, in the spirit of Eq. 12.35 that F^ be no higher than second order in
the derivatives of the g^. Two arguments are given for this erroneous conclusion.
The first one, found in Einstein’s part, can be phrased as follows. One needs a
generalization of div grad <^. The generalization of the gradient operator is the
covariant differentiation. The generalization of 0 is g^. But the covariant deriv-
ative of^^ vanishes (Eq. 12.16)1 In Einstein’s words, ‘These operations [the cov-
ariant version of div grad] degenerate when they are applied to From this,

it seems to follow that the sought-for equations will be covariant only with respect
to a certain group of transformations . . . which for the lime being is unknown to
us.’

The second argument, contained in Grossmann’s part, is also incorrect. As was
mentioned above, Grossmann saw that the Ricci tensor (Eq. 12.20) might well be
a candidate for F^ in Eq. 12.34. However, according to Grossmann, ‘it turns out
. . . that this tensor does not reduce to A0 in the special case of the weak gravita-
tional field.’ Reluctantly, the conclusion is drawn in EG that the invariance group
for the gravitational equations has to be restricted to linear transformations only
(dx^'/dx^^ is independent of x^), since then, it is argued, d/dx^l^dg^/dx") does
transform like a tensor, which, moreover, reduces to 0.^^^ in the weak-field limit
given by Eq. 12.29. ‘If the field is static and if only g^ varies [as a function of
■x), then we arrive at the case of Newton’s gravitation theory. The troublesome
Eq. 12.16 had been evaded!

Einstein also gave a ‘physical argument’ for the impssibility of generally
covariant equations for the gravitational field. This argument, though of course

222

RELATIVITY, THE GENERAL THEORY

incorrect, is nevertheless quite important. Consider (he says) a four-dimensional
space- time domain divided into two parts, L, and L 2 . The source of the grav-
itational field (see Eq. 12.34) shall be nonzero only in L,. Nevertheless, 6^ deter-
mines the in all of L by means of Eq. 12.34. Make a generally covariant
transformation x^ such that x^ = x], in L, while, at least in part of L 2 ,
x^ ^ x^. Then g^ in that part of L 2 . The source 6^ remains unchanged:
6^ = in Lj while, in L 2 , 6^ once it is equal to zero stays equal to zero. There-
fore, general covariance implies that more than one g^ distribution is possible for
a given 6^ distribution. '‘If — as was done in this paper — the requirement is
adhered to that the g^ are completely determined by the then one is forced to
restrict the choice of reference system* (my italics). (Note that the above transfor-
mation x^ x^ is not allowed if the transformation is linear!) This reasoning is
quite correct. Then what had gone wrong?

Einstein’s ‘physical argument’ is irrelevant. The g^, are not completely deter-
mined by 6^,. His predicament was, put most succinctly, that he did not know the
Bianchi identities. Let us consider the final form for Eq. 12.34, which he was to
derive in 1915:

K- \/2g,fi = -kT,, (12.36)

where is given by Eq. 12.20 and R = R^g^r left-hand side satisfies the
four Bianchi identities

(/?'•*' - 1/2^'/?)., = 0 (12.37)

Because of these relations, Eq. 12.36 does not determine the ^ uniquely — ^just as
the Maxwell equations do not determine the electromagnetic potentials uniquely
[W9]. The g^, are determined only up to a transformation g^, -* g^, correspond-
ing to an arbitrary coordinate transformation x^ x\. Einstein still had to under-
stand that this freedom expresses the fact that the choice of coordinates is a matter
of convention without physical content. That he knew by 1915 — although even
then he still did not know the Bianchi identities (Chapter 1 5).

Wc now also understand Grossmann’s difficulty with the Newtonian limit. Use
Eq. 12.29 and define h'^ ^ h^, — rj^ri„fih’^> Then Eq. 12.35 becomes

Oh'^-

dx'dx’

-kT„

(12.38)

an intransparent relation. However, one is free to choose a coordinate frame in
which

dx"

= 0

(12.39)

In the static weak-field limit, all components of R^, except are negligible and
(see Eq. 12.31)

the einstein-grossmann collaboration

223

the desired result.

/?oo ^ ^^00/2 — A 0

(12.40)

Einstein did not at once perceive the apparent restrictions on general covariance
as a flaw. He felt that the problem had been solved. Early in 1913 he wrote to
Ehrenfest. The gravitation affair has been clarified to my full satisfaction
(namely, the circumstance that the equations of the gravitational field are covar-
iant only for linear transformations). One can specifically prove that generally
covariant equations which completely determine the [gravitational] field from the
matter tensor cannot exist at all. What can be more beautiful than that this nec-
essary specialization follows from the conservation laws?’ (his italics) [E34].

This concludes a sketch of the arguments by which Einstein and Grossmann
arrived at a hybrid theory in which some basic elements of the ultimate theory are
already in evidence. I shall omit as of less interest the calculations which led them
to explicit expressions for and in Eq. 12.34 that satisfy the conservation
laws. The effort had been immense. Apologizing to Ehrenfest for a long silence,
Einstein wrote in May 1913, ‘My excuse lies in the literally superhuman efforts
I have devoted to the gravitational problem. I now have the inner conviction that
I have come upon what is correct and also that a murmur of indignation will go
through the rows of colleagues when the paper appears, which will be the case in
a few weeks’ [E35].

I have now come to the end of the more complex and adventurous part of Ein-
stein’s road to the general theory of relativity. It began in 1907 with the equiva-
lence principle, then there were the years of silence, then came the Prague papers
about the c field, and finally the collaboration with Grossmann. In 1913 the theory
was, of course, far from its logical completion. But the remaining story of Ein-
stein’s contributions is much more straightforward. It consists mainly of the rec-
ognitions that general covariance can be implemented, that the Ricci tensor is the
clue to the right gravitational equations, and that there are the three classical suc-
cesses of the theory. All this will be discussed in later chapters.

12c. The Aftermath

In 1905 Einstein had dedicated his doctoral thesis to Grossmann. In 1955 he ded-
icated his last published autobiographical sketch ( E32] to the same old friend, long
since deceased. The brief remainder of this chapter is devoted to the tale of Ein-
stein and Grossmann from the times following their epochal collaboration until
shortly before Einstein’s death.

224

RELATIVITY, THE GENERAL THEORY

On September 9, 1913, first Einstein then Grossmann read papers before the
annual meeting of the Swiss Physical Society [E36, 02). These papers are sim-
plified versions of EG and contain nothing substantially new. Einstein had already
moved to Berlin when their next and last joint paper came out [E37]. In this work,
they returned to the gravitational equations to ask, What are the most general
transformations admissible under the assumption that the are completely
determined by the field equations? In EG they had shown that the demand of
linearity was sufficient for this purpose. Now they found that some nonlinear
transformations are admissible as well (including accelerations of various kinds).
Actually, they were getting closer to the correct answers: their unjustified criterion
of uniquely determined is expressed by a set of four not generally covariant
constraints. As is now well known, four constraints with this properly (the so-
called coordinate conditions) are indeed required in the correct general theory in
order to eliminate the ambiguities in the by means of the choice of some par-
ticular coordinate system [WIO].

All publications by Grossmann during the next seven years deal with pedagog-
ical and political subjects. Among social issues to which he devoted himself during
the First World War was aid to students of all nations who had been taken pris-
oners of war. Between 1922 and 1930 he wrote another five papers on his favorite
subject: descriptive geometry.

By 1920, the first signs of the disease that would fell him, multiple sclerosis,
had already appeared. By 1926 the symptoms were severe. His daughter Elsbeth
Grossmann told me that from then on he had difficulties speaking. In 1927 he had
to resign his professorship at the ETH.

In 1931 Grossmann wrote his last paper [G3]. It is a polemic, without formu-
lae, against the concepts of parallel displacement (Levi-Civita), absolute parallel-
ism (Cartan), and distant parallelism (Einstein). The paper originated as a reac-
tion to what Grossmann was told by a friend about a lecture by Einstein on unified
field theory. Grossmann asserts that there are logical objections to all the concepts
just mentioned. One cannot but feel sad upon reading this paper. Its contents were
discussed in a correspondence between Einstein and Grossmann that is friendly
yet strained. Einstein also wrote to Cartan, urging him not to answer Grossmann
publicly [E38]; Cartan agreed [C21.’*'

After Grossmann’s death in 1936, Einstein wrote a moving and deeply respect-
ful letter to his widow [E39] about Grossmann’s 'gruesome fate after early years
rich in work and aspiration.’ He writes of Grossmann ‘the exemplary student
. . . having good relations with the teachers .... I, separate and dissatisfied, not
very popular.’ He writes of Grossmann’s helping him to obtain a job, ‘without
which I would not have died but might have spiritually wasted away.’ He writes
of ‘the joint feverish work a decade later.’ And adds, ‘Aber eines ist doch schon.
Wir waren und blicben Freundc durchs Leben hindurch.’**

•These two letters are contained in the published Cartan-Einstein correspondence (C3].

••But one thing is really beautiful. We were and remained friends throughout life.

THE EINSTEIN-GROSSMANN COLLABORATION

225

I have a sense of regret that Einstein did not do something for which he had
often demonstrated a talent and sensitivity, to write an obituary shortly after
Grossmann’s death. He did so later. In 1955 he wrote of Grossmann, of their
collaboration, and of how the latter had ‘checked through the literature and soon
discovered that the mathematical problem had already been solved by Riemann,
Ricci, and Levi-Civita. . . . Riemann’s achievement was the greatest one.’ In this
article, Einstein wrote, ‘The need to express at least once in my life my gratitude
to Marcel Grossmann gave me the courage to write this . . . autobiographical
sketch’ [E32].

References

Bl. M. Born, v4dP30, 1 (1909).

B2. , Phys. Zeitschr. 10, 814 (1909).

B3 ,Phys Zeitschr 11,233 (1910)

B4. V. B. Braginskii and V I. Panov, Societ. Phys JETP 34, 463 (1972).

Cl. E. B. Christoffel, Z. Math. 70, 46 (1869).

C2. E. Cartan, letter to A. Einstein, June 24, 1931

C3. Cartan- Einstein Correspondence on Absolute Parallelism (R. Debever, Ed.).

Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., 1979.

El. A. Einstein, letter to M. Grossmann, November 18, 1911

E2 , Astrophys. J. 63, 196 (1926)

E3. , telegram to H. Zangger, November 20, 1911.

E4. , letter to H. Zangger, January 27, 1912.

E5. , letter to A. Stern, February 2, 1912.

E6. , letter to H. Zangger, Spring 1912

E7. , letter to H. A. Lorentz, November 23, 1911.

E8. , letter to H Zangger, February 29, 1912.

E9. , letter to P. Ehrenfest, 1913, undated.

ElO. , /ld/P38, 443 (1912).

Ell. , letter to M. Besso, March 26, 1912

E12. , letter to P. Ehrenfest, 1912, undated.

El 3. , letter to H. Zangger, May 20, 1912

E14. , letter to H. Zangger, 1912, undated.

El 5. , postcard to M. von Laue, June 10, 1912.

El 6. , letter to L. Hopf, June 12, 1912.

E17. , ZdP38, 1059 (1912).

E18. ,lcucrtoL. Hopf, August 16, 1912.

E19. in Helle Zexl, dunkle Ze,l (C. Seelig, Ed.), p. 10. Europa Verlag,

Zurich,

E20. Bicak, Ed.), p. 42. Prometheus, Prague, 1979.

E21. , Die Grundlage der Allgemeinen Relatwitdtstheone , p. 6. J. A. ar ,

E22.

E23. , letter to P. Ehrenfest, June 7, 1912.

E24. , Viertelj. Schnft Ger. Medtztn 44, 37 (1912).

E25. , Phys. Zeitschr. 10, 817 (1909).

226

RELATIVITY, THE GENERAL THEORY

E26. P. Ehrcnfcst, Phys. Zeitschr. 10, 918 (1909).

E27. A. Einstein, AdP 4% 769 (1916).

E28. , letter to A. Sommerfeld, October 29, 1912. See A. Hermann, Einstein/ Som-

mer Jeld Bnefwechsel, p. 26. Schwabc Verlag, Stuttgart., 1968.

E29. and M. Grossmann, Z. Math. Physik, 62, 225 (1913).

E30. PAW, 1914, p. 1030.

E31. , AdP4% 769 (1916), Sec. 5.

E32. in Helle Zeit, dunkle Zeit (C. Seelig, Ed.). Europa Verlag, Zurich, 1956.

E33. , ^<fP38, 443 (1912).

E34. , letter to P. Ehrenfest, 1913, undated.

E35. , letter to P. Ehrenfest, May 28, 1913.

E36. Viertelj. Schrift Naturf. Ges. Ziinch 58, 284 (1913). An abbreviated version

appears in Verh. Schw. Naturf. Ges. 96, 137 (1914), and a French translation in
Arch. Sci. Phys. Nat. 37, 5 (1914).

E37. and M. Grossmann, Z. Math. Physik. 63, 215 (1915).

E38. , letter to E. Cartan, June 13, 1931.

E39. , letter to Mrs M. Grossmann, September 26, 1936.

FI. Ph. Frank, Albert Einstein; Sein Leben und seine Zeit, p. 141. Vieweg, Braun-
schweig, 1979.

Gl . M. Grossmann, Proceedings of the 5th International Congress of Mathematicians,
August 1912, p. 66. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1913.

G2. , Viertelj. Schnft Naturf Ges. Zurich 58, 291 (1913).

G3. , Viertelj. Schrift Naturf Ges. Ziinch 76, 42 (1931).

HI. G. Herglotz, AdP^, 393 (1909). .

II. J. Ishiwara, Einstein Koen-Roku. Tokyo-Tosho, Tokyo, 1977.

Kl. L. Kollros, Verh. Schw. Naturf Ges. 115, 522 (1934).

K2. , Helv. Phys. Acta Suppl. 4, 271 (1956).

K3. F. Klein, Vorlesungen iiber die Entwicklung der Mathematik im 19. fahrhundert,
Vol. 2, p. 189. Springer, New York, 1979.

LI. H. A. Lorentz, letter to A. Einstein, December 6, 1911.

L2. H. Lamb, Hydrodynamics {6th cdn.), p. 12. Dover, New York.

Ml. C. W. Misner, K. S. Thome, and J. A. Wheeler, Gravitation, p. 393. Freeman,
San Francisco, 1973.

PI. W, Pauli in Encyklopddie der Mathematischen Naturwissenschaften, Vol. V, 2,
Sec. 45, Teubner, Leipzig, 1921.

Rl. P. G. Roll, R. Krotkov, and R. H. Dickc, Ann. Phys. 26, 442 (1964).

R2. G. Ricci and T. Levi-Civita, Math. Ann. 54, 125 (1901).

51. W. Saxer, Viertelj. Schr. Naturf. Ges. Zurich 81, 322 (1936).

52. Se, p. 226.

53. Sc, pp. 227-33.

54. Sc, p. 242.

55. Sc, p. 38.

56. E. G. Straus, discussion with A. Pais, December 11, 1979.

57. D. J. Struik, Isis 19, 92 (1932); 20, 161 (1933).

Wl. S. Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology. Wiley, New York, 1972 (quoted as W
hereafter).

W2. W,pp. 11-13.

THE EINSTEIN-GROSSMANN COLLABORATION

227

W3. W, pp. 93-8.

W4. W, pp. 75, 103-6.
W5. W, pp. 98, 107.
W6. W, p. 105.

W7. W,p. 133.

W8. W, p. 77.

W9. W, p. 161.

WIO. W, p. 162.

Field Theories of Gravitation:
the First Fifty Years

13a. Emstein in Vienna

It did not take Einstein long to realize that the collaboration with Grossmann [El ]
had led to some conclusions that defeated the very task he had set himself. Let us
briefly recapitulate the developments in his thinking about gravitation up to the
spring of 1913. Late in 1907 he discovered the singular position of gravitation in
the theory of relativity. He realized that the question was not how to incorporate
gravitation into the special theory but rather how to use gravitation as a means of
breaking away from the privileged position of covariance for uniform relative
motion to covariance for general motion. In his Prague days, the analysis of the
motion of light in an inhomogeneous gravitational field taught him that the light
velocity depends on the gravitational potential and that therefore the framework
of the special theory of relativity was too narrow [E21. Toward the end of his stay
in Prague, the technical concept of general covariance took shape in his mind and
the fundamental role of the metric tensor as the carrier of gravitation became clear.
The first steps toward the tensor theory of gravitation, taken with Grossmann, led
him to conclude that the gravitational field equations can be covariant only with
respect to linear transformations.

By August 1913, it had become clear to him that this last result spelled disaster.
He expressed this in a letter to Lorentz: . . .‘My faith in the reliability of the

theory still fluctuates The gravitational equations unfortunately do not have

the property of general covariance. Only their covariance for linear transforma-
tions is assured. However, the whole faith in the theory rests on the conviction
that acceleration of the reference system is equivalent to a gravitational field.
Thus, if not all systems of equations of the theory . . . admit transformations other
than linear ones, then the theory contradicts its own starting point [and] all is up
in the air’ (sie steht dann in der Luft) [E3].

Thoughts such as these must have been on Einstein’s mind when he traveled
to Vienna, where on September 23 he had to present a paper before the Natur-
forscherversammlung.* He was going to report not only on his own work but also

•At that meeting, Einstein met and complimented Friedrich Kottler, who had been the first to write
the Maxwell equations in generally covariant form, though not in connection with a theory of grav-
itation [Kl]. Kottler’s later involvement with general relativity was less successful |E3al.

— o

FIELD THEORIES OF GRAVITATION: THE FIRST FIFTY YEARS

229

on the gravitation theory which the Finnish physicist Gunnar Nordstrom had
been developing since 1912. Furthermore, he was going to comment on yet another
recent gravitation theory, this one by Abraham (whom we encountered earlier in
the discussion of special relativity). He would also be confronted, he knew, with
still a further theory of gravity of recent vintage, one by Gustav Mie.* In one way
or another, this outpouring of gravitation theories in the years 1912 and 1913 was
a consequence of Einstein’s Prague papers. Abraham had proposed to extend Ein-
stein’s theory of variable light velocity in a static gravitational field to the nonstatic
case. Nordstrom had raised another question: could not the equivalence principle
be incorporated in a relativistic theory with constant light velocity? Mie’s theory
was yet another variant in which c is constant. These activities during 1911-13
do not by any means mark the beginnings of the search for a field theory of grav-
itation, however. As a preface to the discussion of the confused situation at the
Vienna congress of 1913 let us briefly go back half a century.

The search began with Maxwell’s remarks on a vector theory of gravitation.
These are found tucked away in his great memoir, A Dynamical Theory of the
Electromagnetic Field, completed in 1864, the purpose of which is ‘to explain the
[electromagnetic] action between distant bodies without assuming the existence of
forces capable of acting directly at sensible distances. The theory I propose may
therefore be called a theory of the Electromagnetic Field . . .’ [Ml]. After devoting
some forty printed pages to this problem. Maxwell abruptly and briefly turns to
gravitation: ‘After tracing to the action of the surrounding medium both the mag-
netic and the electric attractions and repulsions, and finding them to depend on
the inverse square of the distance, we are naturally led to inquire whether the
attraction of gravitation, which follows the same law of the distance, is not also
traceable to the action of a surrounding medium.’ But how can one explain, Max-
well asks, that the gravitational force is attractive whereas the force between elec-
tric charges of the same sign is repulsive? He notes that this requires an ad hoc
change of sign when going from the electromagnetic to the gravitational pon-
deromotive force (recall: this is a vector theory). Therefore the gravitational energy
also needs an additional minus sign. This leads to paradoxes: ‘the presence ot
dense bodies influences the medium so as to diminish this energy [of the medium]
wherever there is a resultant attraction. As I am unable to understand in what
way a medium can possess such properties, I cannot go any further in this direc-
tion in searching for the cause of gravitation.

Maxwell’s wise words were not generally heeded, not even by physicists of great
stature. Oliver Heaviside discussed the gravitational-electromagnetic analog
without mentioning the negative enei^ difficulty [HI], So, remarkably, did
Lorentz, in one of his rare speculative papers [LI], written m 1900. He propped
that the repulsive forces between two particles with respective charges (+e +e)
equal those for (-e,-e) but are slightly weaker (in absolute magnitude) than
the attractive force for the case (+e, -e). Then if one has, for example, two

•References to other work on gravitation from that period aie found in a review by Abraham [At)

230

RELATIVITY, THE GENERAL THEORY

neutral particles at rest, each composed of a pair of subunits (*f e, —e), there is
a residual Newtonian attraction between them. The formalism of his theory con»
sists of a doubled set of Maxwell equations and ponderomotive forces (the latter
with coefficients adjusted to give the desired behavior for the various charge com-
binations). Nowhere in this strange paper is it noted that there exists a doubling
of conservation laws, one for charge and one for gravitational rest mass. Lorentz
calculated velocity-dependent corrections to Newton’s law and went as far as eval-
uating their influence (too small) on the perihelion of Mercury. A few others also
examined the consequences of this theory [Gl, Wl]. In 1908 Poincare mentioned
Lorentz’s gravitation theory as an example of a field theory that is compatible
with the requirements of special relativity [PI].*

As late as 1912, it was still necessary to show that all these vector theories made
no sense because of Maxwell’s negative energy difficulty. At that time Abraham
pointed out that the equilibrium of a gravitational oscillator is unstable [A2|: the
amplitude of the slightest oscillation increases with emission of gravitational field
energy; there is radiation enhancement rather than radiation damping. Thus the
vector theories were buried at just about the time attention shifted to scalar
theories.

This brief period began with Einstein’s paper of June 1911, in which he
showed that the velocity of light cannot generally be treated as a universal constant
in a static gravitational field [E4]. Half a year later, Abraham made the first
attempt to extend this conclusion to nonstatic fields [A3|. He tried the impossible:
to incorporate this idea of a nonconstant light velocity into the special theory of
relativity. He generalized the Newtonian equation for a point particle, K =
— = 3, where K is the gravitational force acting on a unit of mass, ^ the

potential, and a the acceleration, to

= U. (13.1)

where is the four- velocity and the dot denotes differentiation with respect to
the proper time r. The function is supposed to satisfy an equation of the type

= p (13.2)

where $ and p are scalar fields. The four-velocity satisfies

u,u'--c^ (13.3)

From Eqs. 13.1 and 13.3,

^ dx!" dr ^ dr

(13.4)

* Poincare had already emphasized the ne<Ki for a relativistic theory of gravitation in his memoir of
1905 [ P21, in which he discussed some general kinematic aspects of the problem without commitment
to a specific nuxlel. Sec also Minkowski [M2].

field theories of gravitation: the first fifty years

231

since c is not a constant. Hence

- c\ = 2 (, -

(13.5)

or, approximately.

(13.6)

which is Einstein’s equation of 1911 (see Eq. 11.6). No use is made of Eq. 13.2
in this derivation. The latter equation looks invariant with respect to special rel-
ativity, but of course it is not, since c is variable. Abraham commented on this in
his next communication: The variability of c implies that the Lorentz group holds
only in the infinitesimally small’ [A4], a statement that was almost at once dis-
proved by Einstein [E5].

A debate began in the Annalen der Physik which, from Abraham’s side, lacked
style and substance. In a first comment [A5], Abraham noted that relativity was
threatening the healthy development of physics since ‘it was clear to the sober
observer that this theory could never lead to a complete world picture if it were
not possible ... to incorporate gravity.’ He added that Einstein had given ‘the
death blow to relativity’ by discarding the unconditional validity of Lorentz invar-
iance.* ‘Someone who, like this author [A.], has had to warn repeatedly against
the siren song of this theory will greet with satisfaction [the fact] that its originator
has now convinced himself of its untenability.’ Abraham acknowledged the cor-
rectness of Einstein’s technical objections to his work. In a later paper [A 6 ], he
unveiled his ‘second theory’: ‘I would prefer to develop the new theory of gravi-
tation without entering into [a discussion of] the space-time problem.’ Abraham
now gives up Lorentz invariance altogether and introduces an absolute reference
system (see also [Al], p, 488).

Einstein shot right back, though in measured language: [Special] relativity has
a wide range of applicability [and is] an important advance; I do not believe it has
impeded the progress of physics. . . . There is not the slightest ground to doubt the
general validity of the relativity principle [for uniform motion]’ [E 6 ]. He
expressed his own views about the difficult and as yet unsolved problem of gravity
by making a comparison: ‘In my opinion, the situation [regarding gravity] does
not indicate the failure of the [special] relativity principle, just as the discovery
and correct interpretation of Brownian motion did not lead one to consider ther-
modynamics and hydrodynamics as heresies.’ He added that he himself did not
yet understand how the equivalence principle was to be implemented in general.

Abraham did not give up and published a rebuttal [A7]. It adds nothing sub-
stantially new and is vicious: ‘[Einstein] craves credit for the future theory of
ativity.’ In reply, Einstein published a five-line statement in which he declared

*Note that these comments preceded the publication

of the Einstein -Grossman paper (El).

232

RELATIVITY, THE GENERAL THEORY

that the public debate was closed as far as he was concerned [E7]. To a friend he
described Abraham’s theory as ‘a stately horse which lacks three legs’ [E8].

I would have disregarded the Abraham- Einstein polemic were it not for the
fact that Abraham was a very good physicist. Einstein considered him to have the
best understanding of gravitation among his colleagues [EQ]. Abraham’s 1914
review of gravitation theories is excellent [Al]. When in 1913 Einstein decided to
leave Zurich for Berlin, he suggested to Zangger that Abraham be considered as
his successor [ElO].* But, he added, ‘I believe that they will proceed without me
because I have espoused the cause of the feared Abraham.’

Abraham had a great and unfortunate talent for creating difliculties for himself,
especially because of his biting sarcasm. Between himself and his visions stood
forever the figure of his demon: Einstein. He understood relativity but could not
find peace with it. He cannot be called a major scientist but should be remembered
nevertheless as a figure representing the tragic element which accompanies sci-
entific transition. He died in 1923 of a brain tumor. Born and von Laue jointly
wrote his obituary: ‘He was an honorable opponent who fought with honest weap-
ons and who did not cover up a defeat by lamentation and nonfactual arguments.
The abstractions of Einstein were deeply repugnant to him; he loved his absolute
aether, his field equations, his rigid electron, as a youth does his first flame, whose
memories cannot be erased by later experiences. But he remained clearheaded
... his objections rested on basic convictions regarding physics . . . and not on lack
of knowledge’ (BlJ.

To return to the developments prior to the publication of the Ein-
stein -Grossmann paper, late in 1912 Nordstrom in Helsingfors (Helsinki) came
forth with an ingenious idea (Nl|. Since both Einstein and Abraham experienced
so much trouble from the 4>-dependence of c, why not try to find a theory of
gravitation in which c is independent of and remains a universal constant in the
familiar way? As I have noted repeatedly, Einstein correctly saw from the begin-
ning that the incorporation of gravity meant the end of the unconditional validity
of special relativity. All the same, Nordstrom’s question was an eminently sensible
one for its time. It is peculiar that this line of thought had remained unexplored
(or at least had not been discussed in the scientific literature) until October 1912.

As we saw from Abraham’s mishandling of Eqs. 13.1-13.4, the problem is not
quite trivial. Nordstrom’s idea was to let not c but, instead, mass depend on .
For general mass m, he rewrote Eq. 13.1 (which referred to unit mass) as follows:

mK^ = — m — = — (mwj = -f rfiu^ (13.7)

ax'* ar

The novelty of his theory lies in the rh term. From Eq. 13.7 and the obviously
unchanged Eq. 13.3, one finds

mu'*

dx^

(13.8)

•On May 17, 1912, Einstein wrote to Wien that Abraham had become a ‘convert’ to his theory.

field theories of GRAVITATION; THE FIRST FIFTY YEARS

233

whence

m = mo exp (<l>/c^)

(13.9)

Note further that Eqs. 13.7 and 13.8 yield

(13.10)

= +

in which m has disappeared. Equations 13.10 and 13.2 form the basis of Nord-
strbms first theory, in which he identified p with the ‘rest mass density‘ [N21.

I shall leave aside further details of this theory, which left much to be desired, and
turn at once to his ‘second theory’, which he proposed in 1913 [N3]. Though it
was not to survive, it deserves to be remembered as the first logically consistent
relativistic field theory of gravitation ever formulated.

The main idea (which Nordstrom owed to von Laue and Einstein) is that the
only possible source for his scalar gravitational field is

T=v^T^ ( 13 . 11 )

the trace of the energy momentum tensor T'" ( 7 ;^ is, as usual, the Minkowski
metric). All the physical conclusions of the theory are due to Nordstrom himself.

I shall not follow his derivations, however, but instead describe the simple trick,
reported by Einstein at the Vienna meeting [Ell], which leads rapidly to the
desired result.

In Eq. 13.10, put ^ = cMn f Then

(' 3 <«

This equation can be derived from the variational principle

5 = 0 drl = —T^^^dx^dx" (13.13)

Once one has a variational principle, one can derive the equation for the energy
momentum tensor of a particle with rest mass m and rest volume K (p = m/V),
where the particle is treated as a continuum distributed over the rest volume V.

r- = ^ (13.14)

and for its divergence

(13.15)

dx"

Equation 13.14 yields Tl=T= hence Eq. 13.15 becomes

dT'“ ^

dx’ 'P 9x,

(13.16)

234

RELATIVITY, THE GENERAL THEORY

in which all reference to a particle with mass m has disappeared. Einstein pro-
posed to consider Eq. 13.16 to hold whatever material (and electromagnetic) sys-
tem generates 7^. Put

= kT (13.17)

This is Nordstrom’s ‘second’ field equation. It follows from Eqs. 13.16 and 13.17
that

a(r*“' -h r)

dx^

(13.18)

where

K dx^dx, 2

(13.19)

is the energy momentum tensor of the gravitational field. Thus the theory is
Lorentz invariant and also satisfies the conservation laws.

Now to the equivalence principle. Consider a totally static closed system. This
obeys (integrated over the system) = 0 (i = 1, 2, 3). Hence, JTitix = —
where E is its total energy. The same relation is also true for a system in
statistical equilibrium provided E is considered as the time average, over the sys-
tem.* Go to the static weak-field limit, ypje^ — 1 -f 0/c^ where <t> is the New-
tonian potential. Then Eq. 13.17 becomes

A0 = (13.20)

and we have the desired result that the gravitational mass is proportional to the
total energy of the system.** As Einstein put it later, in this theory the equivalence
principle is a statistical law [El 2].

About one quarter of Einstein’s Vienna report, ‘On the Current Status of the
Gravitation Problem,’ is devoted to Nordstrom’s work.f He commented only
briefly on Abraham’s contributions, noting that he considered it a requirement of
any future theory that special relativity be incorporated and that Abraham had
not done so. When in the subsequent discussion Mie remarked that Nordstrom’s
theory was an outgrowth of Abraham’s work, Einstein replied; psychologically
yes, logically no. The incorporation of the equivalence principle was another desi-

*See [L2). The average is to be taken over a time that evens out pressure fluctuations.

••This is the weak equivalence principle in the sense of Dicke, who further showed that the Nord-
strdm theory does not satisfy the strong equivalence principle, according to which in a nonrotating
free-falling laboratory the laws of physics arc those of gravity-free space, assumed to be everywhere
the same [Dl],

f Einstein also used this occasion to withdraw an objection to the scalar theory which he had raised
in his paper with Grossmann (£1). For other comments on scalar gravitation, sec (W21.

field theories of GRAVITATION; THE FIRST FIFTY YEARS

235

dcratum stressed by Einstein. *In the context [of a theory of gravitation], the Ebt-
vos experiment plays a role similar to that of the Michelson experiment for uni-
form motion.* When Mie asked afterward why Einstein had not mentioned his,
Mie’s, work, Einstein replied that he would discuss only theories which, unlike
Mie’s, satisfy the equivalence principle.* The bulk of Einstein’s report was of
course devoted to his recent work with Grossmann. It added little to what has
already been described here. At Vienna, Mie was Einstein’s principal antagonist.
Shortly after this meeting, Mie wrote a further critique on Einstein’s theory [M4],
to which Einstein replied by giving arguments that were in part incorrect: once
again he stressed the inevitability of the invariance of the gravitational equations
for linear transformations only [El 3].

In summary, prior to 1912 no attempt to construct a field theory of gravitation
had led anywhere. Toward the end of 1913 the situation was thoroughly con-
fused. Nordstrom’s was the only consistent theory of gravitation. Most physicists
were ready to accept special relativity. A few were willing to concede the funda-
mental role of the equivalence principle, but others thought that an exaggeration.
There is no evidence that anyone shared Einstein’s views concerning the limita-
tions imposed by gravitation on special relativity, nor that anyone was ready to
follow his program for a tensor theory of gravitation. Only Lorentz had given him
some encouragement. ‘I am happy that you receive our investigation [E.-
Grossmann] with favor,’ Einstein wrote in the same letter in which he had
expressed his own doubts about the status of his theory [E3].

Despite these reservations, Einstein was in a combative mood. Commenting on
the criticisms by Abraham and Mie, he wrote, ‘I enjoy it that this affair is at least
taken up with the requisite animation. I enjoy the controversies. Figaro mood:
“Will der Herr Graf ein Tanzlein wagen? Er soil’s nur sagen! Ich spiel ihm auf”
[El 4].** He felt sure that the four-dimensional pseudo-Euclidean description
needed revision. ‘I enjoy it that colleagues occupy themselves at all with the theory,

although for the time being with the purpose of killing it On the face of it,

Nordstrom’s theory ... is much more plausible. But it, too, is built on the a priori
Euclidean four-dimensional space, the belief in which amounts, I feel, to some-
thing like a superstition’ [El 5]. In March 1914, he expressed himself as follows
about his own efforts. ‘Nature shows us only the tail of the lion. But I do not
doubt that the lion belongs to it even though he cannot at once reveal himself
because of his enormous size’ [El 6].+

Mn Mic’s theory IM3]. the ratio of gravitational and inertial mass depends on physiwl parameters
such as velocity and temperature. Also, there is neither a red shift nor a n mg 0 ig . 0 no

discuss this complicated theory here (it contains two scalar fields) because it does not contain con-
ceptually interesting points of view.

••Would the Count like to dare a little dance? Let him but say so! I’ll play him a tune.

tsee Chapter 14 for comments by Einstein in 1914 on tbe Nordstrom theory and [El?) for his
reminiscences on scalar theories.

236

RELATIVITY, THE GENERAL THEORY

The portrait of Einstein the scientist in 1913 is altogether remarkable. He has
no compelling results to show for his efforts. He sees the limitations of what he
has done so far. He is supremely confident of his vision. And he stands all alone.
It seems to me that Einstein’s intellectual strength, courage, and tenacity to con-
tinue under such circumstances and then to be supremely vindicated a few years
later do much to explain how during his later years he would fearlessly occupy
once again a similar position, in his solitary quest for an interpretation of quantum
mechanics which was totally at variance with commonly held views.

13b. The Einstein-Fokker Paper

Adriaan Daniel Fokker received his PhD degree late in 1913 under Lorentz. His
thesis dealt with Brownian motions of electrons in a radiation field [FI] and con-
tains an equation which later became known as the Fokker- Planck equation.
After this work was completed, Lorentz sent Fokker to Zurich to work with Ein-
stein. The resulting collaboration lasted one semester only. It led to one brief paper
which is of considerable interest for the history of general relativity because it
contains Einstein’s first treatment of a gravitation theory in which general covar-
iance is strictly obeyed [El 8).

The authors first rewrite Eq. 13.13:

6 J c/r = 0 dr^ = — g^dx^dx'^ (13.21)

from which they conclude that the Nordstrom theory is a special case of the Ein-
stein- Grossmann theory, characterized by the additional requirement that the
velocity of light be constant. Yet the theory is, of course, more general than special
relativity. In particular, it follows from Eq. 13.21 that neither the real rate dt of
a transpK)rtable clock nor the real length dl of a transportable rod have the special
relativistic values d/g and d/o, respectively. Rather (as Nordstrom already knew)
dlo = dt/}//, dlo = dl/}//, compatible with the ^-independence of the light velocity.

This paper is particularly notable for its new derivation of the field equation
(Eq. 13.17). ‘From the investigation by mathematicians of differential tensors,’
this field equation must be of the form (they state)

/? = const. T (13.22)

where

R = g^^R^ (13.23)

is the curvature scalar derived from the Ricci tensor R^ (Eq. 12.20) in which the
g^ are, of course, given (in the present instance) by Eq. 13.21. Einstein and Fok-
ker go on to prove that Eq. 13.22 (with the constant adjusted) is equivalent to
Eq. 13.17!

The paper concludes with the following remark: ‘It is plausible that the role
which the Ricmann-Christoffel tensor plays in the present investigation would

field theories of GRAVITATION; THE FIRST FIFTY YEARS

235

although for the time being with the purpose of killing it On the face of it,

Mn Mic’s theory IM3]. the ratio of gravitational and inertial mass depends on physiwl parameters
such as velocity and temperature. Also, there is neither a red shift nor a n mg 0 ig . 0 no

discuss this complicated theory here (it contains two scalar fields) because it does not contain con-
ceptually interesting points of view.

••Would the Count like to dare a little dance? Let him but say so! I’ll play him a tune.

tsee Chapter 14 for comments by Einstein in 1914 on tbe Nordstrom theory and [El?) for his
reminiscences on scalar theories.

238

RELATIVITY, THE GENERAL THEORY

Gl. R. Cans, Phys. Zeitschr 6, 803 (1905).

HI. O. Heaviside, Electromagnetic Theory (3rd edn.), Vol. 1, p. 455. Chelsea, New
York, 1971.

Kl. F. Kottler, Wiener Ber. 121, 1659 (1912).

LI. H. A. Lorentz, Collected WorkSy Vol. 5, p. 198. Nyhoff, The Hague, 1934.

L2. M. von Laue, Das Relativitdtspnnzipy (2nd edn.), p. 208. Vieweg, Braunschweig,
1913.

Ml. J. C. Maxwell, Collected Papers y Vol. 1, p. 570. Dover, New York, 1952.

M2. H. Minkowski, Goett. Nachr.y 1908, p. 53, Anhang.

M3. G. Mie, AdP40, 1 (1913), Sec. 5.

M4. , Phys. Zeitschr. 15, 115, 169 (1914).

Nl. G. Nordstrom, Phys. Zeitschr. 13, 1126 (1912).

N2. , ^d/P40, 856 (1913).

N3. , 42, 533 (1913).

PI. H. Poincare, Oeuvres, Vol. 9, p. 551. Gauthier- Villars, Paris, 1954.

P2. ,[P11, p. 494, Sec. 9.

Wl. F. Wacker, Phys. Zeitschr. 7, 300 (1906).

W2. M. Wellner and G. Sandri, Am. J. Phys. 28, 36 (1963).

The Field Equations of Gravitation

14a. From Zurich to Berlin

On November 25, 1915, Einstein presented to the physics- mathematics section of
the Prussian Academy of Sciences a paper in which ‘finally the general theory of
relativity is closed as a logical structure* [El], The title of that paper is identical
with the heading of the present chapter, in which it is described how his field
equations reached their final form.

Einstein was still a professor at the ETH when he presented his report to the
Vienna meeting discussed in Chapter 13. However, by then he had already
decided to leave Zurich.

In the spring of 1913, Planck and Nernst had come to Zurich for the purpose
of sounding out Einstein about his possible interest in moving to Berlin. A com-
bination of positions was held out to him: membership in the Prussian Academy
with a special salary to be paid, half by the Prussian government and half by the
physics -mathematics section of the Academy from a fund maintained with outside
help, a professorship at the University of Berlin with the right but not the obli-
gation to teach, and the directorship of a physics institute to be established. The
new institute was to be under the auspices of the Kaiser Wilhelm Gesellschaft, an
organization founded in 191 1 to support basic research with the aid of funds from
private sources.*

Much later, Einstein recalled an interesting exchange between himself and
Planck during this Zurich visit. ‘Planck had asked him what he was working on,
and Einstein described general relativity as it was then. Planck said, “As an older
friend I must advise you against it for in the first place you will not succeed; and
even if you succeed, no one will believe you.” * [Sll.

Einstein reacted rapidly and positively to the approach from Berlin. His cor-
respondence from that period makes abundantly clear the principal reason for his
interest in this offer. Neither then nor later was he averse to discussing physics
issues with younger colleagues and students; but he had had enough of teaching
classes. All he wanted to do was think. The catalogue of PhD theses awarded at

*Thi$ physics institute started its activities in 1917. In 1921, von Laue took over the main day-to-
day responsibilities.

239

240

RELATIVITY, THE GENERAL THEORY

the ETH shows that he had acted as Korreferent* for four theses, all in experi-
mental physics, but had not taken on PhD students in theoretical physics.

Encouraged by Einstein’s response, Planck, Nernst, Rubens, and Warburg
joined in signing a formal laudatio, the statement supporting a proposal for mem-
bership, which was presented to the academy on June 12, 1913 [Kl). On July 3,
the physics- mathematics section voted on the proposal. The result was twenty-
one for, one against [K2]. A number of arrangements remained to be worked out,
but already in July 1913 Einstein wrote to a friend that he was going to be in
Berlin by the spring of 1914 [E2]. In August he wrote to Lorentz, ‘My cordial
thanks for your friendly congratulations concerning the new position. I could not
resist the temptation to accept a position which frees me of all obligations so that
I can devote myself freely to thinking’ (Griibelei) (E3]. To similar good wishes by
Ehrenfest, he replied that he ‘accepted this odd sinecure because it got on my
nerves to give courses, whereas there [in Berlin] I do not have to lecture’ [E4]. To
Zangger he mentioned that contact with the colleagues in Berlin might be stim-
ulating. ‘In particular, the astronomers are important to me (at this time)’ [E5].
This was in obvious reference to his current interest in the red shift and the bend-
ing of light.

In a letter [K3] sent to the academy on December 7, 1913, Einstein formally
accepted membership and declared that he wished to begin his new position in
April 1914. On February 9, 1914, he gave a farewell talk before the Physical
Society of Zurich, in which he noted that ‘we have progressed as little in the theory
of gravitation as the physicists of the eighteenth century when they knew only
Coulomb’s law’ [E6]. He mentioned the Nordstrom and the Einstein-Grossmann
theories, remarked that the former is simpler and more plausible but does not shed
any light on the relativity of nonuniform motion, and expressed the hope that the
bending of light (present in the Einstein-Grossmann theory, absent in the Nord-
strom theory) would soon lead to an experimental choice between these two
possibilities.

The Einsteins left Zurich in late March 1914. Einstein went for a brief visit to
Leiden and from there to Berlin, which was to be his home until December 1932.
His wife and children went for a few weeks to Locarno [E7] and then Joined him
in Berlin, but not for long. Soon after Mileva’s arrival, the Einsteins separated.
I do not know what precipitated this course of events at that particular moment.
But the marriage had been an unhappy one. Einstein never put all the blame for
that on Mileva. With inner resistance, he had entered an undertaking which even-
tually went beyond his strength [E7a]. Now Mileva and the boys were to return
to Zurich. Einstein saw them off at the station. ‘Weinend ist er vom Bahnhof
zuriickgegangen’.** His love for his boys endured. For many years he would reg-

•Thc acceptance of an ETH thesis required formal approval by both a principal examiner (Refer-
ent) and a coexaminer (Korreferent). Einstein acted in the latter capacity for the theses of Karl
Renger, Hans Renker, Elsa Frenkel, and August Piccard.

**‘He wept as he returned from the railway station ’ (H. Dukas, private communication).

THE FIELD EQUATIONS OF GRAVITATION

241

ularly take them on holiday trips. These contacts were not always easy, since
Mileva never reconciled herself to the separation and subsequent divorce. In later
times, after Einstein’s remarriage, the sons would visit and stay with their father
in Berlin.

Soon after the separation, Einstein moved into a bachelor apartment at Wit-
telsbacherstrasse 1 3. Early in April he wrote to Ehrenfest, ‘It is pleasant here in
Berlin. A nice room ... my relations here give me great joy, especially a “Cousine”
[female cousin] of my age to whom I am attached by a long friendship’ [E8]. A
year later he told Zangger, ‘Concerning my personal circumstances, I have never
been as peaceful and happy as I am now. I live a retiring life, yet not a lonely one
thanks to the loving care of a “Cousine” who in fact drew me to Berlin’ [E9].*
We shall hear more about this cousin in Chapter 16.

By the time Einstein arrived in Berlin, he was already a man of great renown,
though not yet the stellar figure he was to become five years later. It was therefore
natural that soon after his arrival, he would be approached by the editors of Die
Vossische Zextung, a major German daily newspaper, with the request that he
explain something of his work to their readers. Einstein accepted. On April 26,
1914, his first newspaper article appeared, entitled ‘Vom Relativitatsprinzip,’
About the relativity principle [ElOj. It is nicely written and deals mainly with
topics in the special theory. Its last paragraph begins with the question, ‘Is the
[special] relativity theory sketched above essentially complete or does it represent
only a first step of a farther-reaching development?’ Einstein remarked that the
second alternative appeared to him to be the correct one but added that ‘on this
point, the views even of those physicists who understand relativity theory are still
divided.’**

This divergence in views on the future of relativity theory, characteristic for the
period 1913-15, was much in evidence on the occasion of Einstein’s inaugural
address before the Prussian Academy, on July 2, 1914 [E12]. After expressing his
gratitude for the opportunity given him to devote himself ‘fully to scientific study,
free of the excitements and cares of a practical profession,’ he turned to the major
current issues in physics. He spoke in praise of Planck, whose ‘quantum hypoth-
esis overthrew classical mechanics for the case of sufficiently small masses moving
with sufficiently small velocities and large accelerations. . . . Our position regard-
ing the basic laws of these [molecular] motions is similar to that of the pre-New-
tonian astronomers in regard to planetary motions.’ Then he went on to relativity
theory and observed that the special theory ‘is not fully satisfactory from the the-
oretical point of view because it gives a preferred position to uniform motion.’

Planck replied [PI], welcoming Einstein and remarking, ‘I know you well
enough to dare say that your real love belongs to that direction of work in which

*‘ . . . die mich ja uberhaupt nach Berlin zog.’

’^•A 1915 review of relativity theory by Einstein [Ell] has the same tenor as his newspaper article.
It is almost entirely devoted to the special theory and toward the end contains phrases nearly identical
to the ones Just quoted.

242

RELATIVITY, THE GENERAL THEORY

the personality can unfold itself in the freest possible way.’ Then he, too, addressed
the question of the preferred uniform motions in the special theory. 'In my opin-
ion, one could just as well take the opposite view [of Einstein’s] and look upon the
preferred position of uniform motion as precisely a very important and valuable
characteristic of the theory*. For, Planck notes, natural laws always imply certain
restrictions on infinitely many possibilities. ‘Should we consider Newton’s law of
attraction unsatisfactory because the power 2 plays a preferred role?’ Could one
perhaps not relate the preferred uniform motion to ‘the special privilege which
indeed singles out the straight line among all other spatial curves’?! These are not
impressive comments. However, one must side with Planck when he courteously
and justly chided Einstein, noting that in the latter’s general theory not all coor-
dinate systems are on an equal footing anyway, ‘as you yourself have proved only
recently.’ Planck ended by expressing the hope that the expedition planned to
observe the solar eclipse of August 21, 1914, would provide information about the
bending of light predicted (not yet correctly) by Einstein. These hopes were dashed
by the outbreak of the First World War.

Einstein’s productivity was not affected by the deep troubles of the war years,
which, in fact, rank among the most productive and creative in his career. During
this period, he completed the general theory of relativity, found the correct values
for the bending of light and the displacement of the perihelion of Mercury, did
pioneering work on cosmology and on gravitational waves, introduced his A and
B coefficients for radiative transitions, found a new derivation of Planck’s radia-
tion law — and ran into his first troubles with causality in quantum physics. Dur-
ing the war he produced, in all, one book and about fifty papers, an outpouring
all the more astounding since he was seriously ill in 1917 and physically weakened
for several years thereafter.

This intense scientific activity did not banish from Einstein’s mind a genuine
and intense concern for the tragic events unfolding in the world around him. On
the contrary, the period of 1914-18 marks the public emergence of Einstein the
radical pacifist, the man of strong moral convictions who would never shy away
from expressing his opinions publicly, whether they were popular or not. Early
in the war, he and a few other scholars signed a ‘manifesto to Europeans’ criticiz-
ing scientists and artists for having ‘relinquished any further desire for the contin-
uance of international relations’ and calling ‘for all those who truly cherish the
culture of Europe to join forces. . . . We shall endeavor to organize a League of
Europeans’ (an effort that came to naught). This appears to be the first political
document to which Einstein lent his name. He also joined the pacifist Bund Neues
Vaterland, League of the New Fatherland.* It gave him joy to find colleagues
who ‘stand above the situation and do not let themselves be driven by the murky

* Einstein on Peace by Otto Nathan and Heinz Norden describes in detail Einstein's political activ-
ities during the First World War [N1 ]. The quotations from the manifesto are taken from that book,
which contains its full text.

THE FIELD EQUATIONS OF GRAVITATION

243

currents of [our] time Hilbert regrets . . . having neglected to foster interna-

tional relations more. . . . Planck does all he can to keep the chauvinist majority
of the Academy in check. I must say that in this respect the hostile nations are
v^ell matched’ [El 3).

The strength of Einstein’s own convictions was not lessened by the amused
detachment with which throughout his life he regarded human folly. ‘I begin to
feel comfortable amid the present insane tumult (wahnsinnige Gegenwartsrum-
mel), in conscious detachment from all things which preoccupy the crazy com-
munity (die verriickte Allgemeinheit). Why should one not be able to live con-
tentedly as a member of the service personnel in the lunatic asylum? After all, one
respects the lunatics as the ones for whom the building in which one lives exists.
Up to a point, one can make one’s own choice of institution — though the distinc-
tion between them is smaller than one thinks in one’s younger years’ [El 4).

Einstein’s initial hopes that the voices of reason might prevail yielded to increas-
ing pessimism as the war dragged on. In 1917 he wrote to Lorentz, ‘I cannot help
being constantly terribly depressed over the immeasurably sad things which bur-
den our lives. It no longer even helps, as it used to, to escape into one’s work in
physics’ [El 5). These feelings of dejection may have been enhanced, I think, by
Einstein’s own illness at that time.

After this digression on Einstein and the war, I return to the developments in
general relativity. We are in the fall of 1914, at which time Einstein wrote a long
paper for the proceedings of the Prussian Academy [El 6]. Its main purpose was
to give a more systematic and detailed discussion of the methods used and the
results obtained in the first paper with Grossmann [El 7). Nearly half the paper
deals with an expose of tensor analysis and differential geometry. Einstein clearly
felt the need to explain these techniques in his own way; they were as new to him
as to most other physicists. The paper also contains several new touches concern-
ing physics. First of all, Einstein takes a stand against Newton’s argument for the
absolute character of rotation (as demonstrated, for example, by Newton’s often
reproduced discussion of the rotating bucket filled with water [Wl]). Instead, Ein-
stein emphasizes, ‘we have no means of distinguishing a “centrifugal field” from
a gravitational field, [and therefore] we may consider the centrifugal field to be a
gravitational field.’ The paper contains another advance. For the first time, Ein-
stein derives the geodesic equation of motion of a point particle (cf. Eq. 12.28)
[El 8] and shows that it has the correct Newtonian limit (cf. Eq. 12.30) [El 9]. He
also shows that his earlier results about the red shift and the bending of light (still
the old value, off by a factor of 2) are contained in the tensor theory [E20]. As a
final positive result, an important comment about the character of space-time
should be mentioned, which (to my knowledge) he makes here for the first time:
‘According to our theory, there do not exist independent (sclbstandige) qualities
of space’ [E21].

Regarding the covariance properties of the gravitational field equations, how-
ever, there is no progress. If anything, the situation is getting slightly worse.

We saw in Section 12d that early in 1913 Einstein and Grossmann had been

244

RELATIVITY, THE GENERAL THEORY

unable to find generally covariant gravitational field equations [£17] and that
Einstein had given a ‘physical argument’ for the impossibility of such general
covariance. Now, late in 1914, Einstein reproduced this same argument in his
long paper. Not only did he still believe it, but he prefaced it with the remark that
‘we must restrict this requirement [of general covariance] if we wish to be in full
agreement with the law of causality’ [E22]. This remark is understandable in the
context of Einstein’s unjustified criterion that the metric tensor should be
uniquely determined by its source, the energy momentum tensor. In the 1914
paper he returned to the division of space-time into two domains L, and L 2 , as
described in Section 12d. Recall that he had found g^ in the matter-free
region L 2 . This time, he wrote this inequality in more detail: g^(x) g^{x'). But,

he now adds, = gu,(x\x)) = f^(x). Anyone familiar with tensor fields

will not be shocked by the fact that g^(x) ¥= f^(x). Einstein, on the other hand,
concluded from this inequality that generally covariant gravitational field equa-
tions are inadmissible. In 1914 not only did he have some wrong physical ideas
about causality but in addition he did not yet understand some elementary math-
ematical notions about tensors [HI]. Once again he insisted that the gravitational
field equations can be covariant only under linear transformations.*

Einstein next proceeded to show that this restricted covariance uniquely deter-
mines the gravitational Lagrangian, provided that the latter is assumed to be
homogeneous and of the second degree in the (ordinary, noncovariant) first deriv-
atives of the g^ [E24]. In the course of 1915 he realized, however, that this
‘argument for the determination of the Lagrange function of the gravitational field
was entirely illusory, since it could easily be modified in such a way that [this
Lagrangian] . . , could be chosen entirely freely’ [E25].

The mathematical details of the October 1914 paper are of no interest for the
understanding of the evolution of the general theory and will be omitted. This
paper gave rise to a correspondence between Einstein and Levi-Civita, early in
1915. The latter pointed out some technical errors. Einstein was grateful for hav-
ing these brought to his attention. Above all, however, he was happy to have
finally found a professional who took a keen interest in his work. ‘It is remarkable
how little my colleagues are susceptible to the inner need for a real relativity the-
ory. ... It is therefore doubly gladdening to get to know better a man like you’
[E26].

In summary, toward the end of 1914 Einstein could look back on a year which
had brought major changes to his personal life and his professional career. He
was still essentially alone in his convictions about the future of relativity theory
and confused about some of its crucial features. One year later, he had corrected
his conceptual errors, completed the theory, and seen others participate actively in
its development.

*Thc slight extension of the set of allowed transformations given in the second Einstcin-Grossmann
paper (£23] (Section 12d) must have been found shortly afterward.

THE FIELD EQUATIONS OF GRAVITATION

245

14b. Interlude: Rotation by Magnetization

‘I firmly believe that the road taken is in principle the correct one and that later
[people] will wonder about the great resistance the idea of general relativity is
presently encountering’ [E27]. This prophesy was made by Einstein in the first
week of 1915. It would be fulfilled before the year was out, but not until Einstein
had passed through a crisis followed by an exhausting struggle. Toward the
autumn of 1915 he finally realized* that his theory up until then was seriously
wrong in several respects.

Meanwhile, early in 1915 he did not publish anything substantially new on
relativity.** He did write two review articles, one on relativity theory [Ell] and
one on the atomic theory of matter [E29], and a short paper on the statistical
properties of electromagnetic radiation in thermal equilibrium [E30]. Of more
interest are his activities in experimental physics. At that time Einstein made good
use of a temporary guest appointment at the Physikalisch Technische Reichsan-
stalt in Gharlottenburg [K4l. ‘In my old age, I am acquiring a passion for exper-
iment’ [E31]. This passion led to the discovery of the Einstein-de Haas (EdH)
effect, the torque induced in a suspended cylinder (made of iron, for example) as
a consequence of its being abruptly magnetized. The present interlude is devoted
to a brief account of these activities.

Wander Johannes de Haas was a Dutch physicist of Einstein’s age. He received
his PhD in Leiden, in 1912, with Kamerlingh Onnes. Later that same year, he
went to the University of Berlin to work in the laboratory of Henri du Bois.f In
August 1913, when Lorentz sent congratulations to Einstein on his forthcoming
appointment in Berlin, he must have added (the letter is lost) a query concerning
de Haas, as is seen from Einstein’s reply: ‘At present, I do not know what to do
in the matter of your son-in-law, since in Berlin I will have neither an institute
nor an assistant.’ [E3]. Then came the visiting appointment at the Reichsanstalt.
Einstein was now in a position to do something for de Haas— and for Lorentz.^
I do not know when de Haas joined Einstein at the Reichsanstalt. However, their
gyromagnetic experiment was performed ‘in a very brief period’ [Hla]. De Haas
left the Reichsanstalt in April 1915.

Soon after the conclusion of their collaboration, Einstein wrote enthusiastically
about the results obtained. ‘Scientifically, I have done a wonderful experimental
thing this semester, together with Lorentz’s son-in-law. We have given firm proof

*Sec Section 14c.

•*It is sometimes incorrectly stated that a brief abstract of a talk by Einstein before the Prussian
Academy [ E28| contains the announcement of the final formulation of his theory as published in
November 1915 [Dl].

fin October 1912 the Ehrenfests visited de Haas and his wife in Berlin— at the suggestion of Lorentz
(K5].

^On one occasion, Einstein referred in print to de Haas as Herr de Haas-Lorentz [E321.

246

RELATIVITY, THE GENERAL THEORY

of the existence of Ampere’s molecular currents* (explanation of para- and fer-
romagnetism) . . . within the limits of error (about 10 per cent) the experiment
yielded in all detail a confirmation of the theory’ [El 4].** Their experiment, sim-
ple in principle, riddled with complexities in practice, gave the first proof of the
existence of rotation induced by magnetization. Their result was qualitatively
right. However, in the pre-spin days of 1915, any dynamic theory of ferromag-
netism had necessarily to be incorrect. Einstein could not know that his theoretical
prediction was wrong by a factor of about 2. Since Einstein and de Haas claimed
to have found agreement between theory and experiment, their experiment had
also to be wrong by a factor of 2. Their estimate of a 10 per cent experimental
error had to be too optimistic. As we shall see, the alleged agreement between
theory and experiment was largely a theoretical prejudice.

Characteristically, Einstein was unaware of earlier efforts to measure gyro-
magnetic effects until some time after his own work had been completed [E33].
These attempts go back to Maxwell, who remarked in his treatise of 1873 that
‘there is as yet no experimental evidence to show whether the electric current is
really a current of a material substance’ [Ml]. He proposed several methods for
testing this idea: acceleration of a conductor should generate a currentf; and a
magnet should act like a gyroscope, which is the basic idea of the EdH effect [M2].
In 1861 Maxwell himself attempted to detect such gyroscopic effects, but without
success.

Two other instances of related work prior to 1915 must be mentioned.ff The
theoretical derivation by Einstein in 1915 had already been given in 1907 by
Owen Willans Richardson, who had also tried in vain to observe the rotation by
magnetization, at Palmer Laboratory in Princeton [Rl].1[ In 1909 Samuel Jack-
son Barnett, then at Tulane University, began the study of the inverse effect, mag-
netization by rotation, now known as the Barnett effect. I shall next outline the
EdH work of 1915 and then state the interesting results obtained by Barnett at
about the same time [B2].

Let us first phrase Ampere’s hypothesis in modem language. The magnetic
moment M of a magnetized body (assumed at rest) is due to circulating ‘hidden

* Andre-Marie Ampere had conjectured around 1820 that magnetism can be considered to be caused
by electricity in motion.

•♦There exists a German (E331, a Dutch [£34], and an English [E35] version of the EdH paper.
Each one of these differs slightly from the other two. The statement on the limits of error in each
paper agrees in substance with what is said in the letter quoted in the text. All three papers appeared
in 1915.

fThis effect was first observed in 1916 (TlJ.

ffA detailed early history of gyromagnetic effects is found in papers by Barnett [Blj.
fFor some years after 1915, the effect was called the Einstein-Richardson effect.

Min EdH and other early papers, the magnetic moment is defined as cM.

THE FIELD EQUATIONS OF GRAVITATION

247

electric currents.’ The hidden flow of current is due to a hidden flow of charged
matter (electrons) moving in closed orbits. Thus there exists a hidden angular
momentum /, related to M by

(14.1)

where and m are the charge and mass of the electron, respectively. The factor
g is now called the Lande factor (^ > 0 for para- and ferromagnetic substances).
In the model of Richardson and Einstein, the value

g = 1 (14.2)

was obtained by the following reasoning. Consider one electron moving with uni-
form velocity t; in a circular orbit with radius r and circular frequency v. Then
V = Ivrv. The angular momentum has the magnitude mur = lirT^mv. An
amount of electricity —ev passes per second through a point of the orbit. The
magnetic moment is therefore equal to {—ev){'Kr^)/c. Hence ^ = 1. The same
value of g should also hold, it was argued, for a piece of paramagnetic or ferro-
magnetic matter as long as magnetism is caused by a set of electrons moving
independently in circular orbits.

Einstein and de Haas knew well that objections could be raised against this
derivation. ‘One of these is even more serious than it was in Ampere’s days . . .
circulating electrons must lose their energy by radiation ... the molecules of a
magnetic body would therefore lose their magnetic moment. Nothing of the kind
having ever been observed, the (Ampere] hypothesis seems irreconcilable with a
general validity of the fundamental laws of electromagnetism. It appears . . . that
... as much may be said in favour of Ampere’s hypothesis as against it and that
the question concerns important physical principles’ [E35]. Clearly the proof that
permanently circulating electrons indeed exist meant far more to Einstein than
only the verification of a century-old hypothesis.^ So it did to Bohr, whose theory
of stationary atomic orbits was only two years old at that time. To Bohr the out-
come of the EdH experiment was a confirmation of his own ideas. Later in 1915
he wrote, ‘As pointed out by Einstein and de Haas, [their] experiments indicate
very strongly that electrons can rotate in atoms without emission of energy radia-
tion’ [B3].* **

The EdH technique for measuring g consisted in analyzing the motion of an
iron cylinder hung vertically (in the z direction; ‘up’ counted as positive) by means

*Thcrc was still another reason why Einstein attached great significance to the EdH effect, as is
seen especially clearly in a paper he wrote in May 1915 (E32]: he believed (incorrectly) that the
persistence of ferromagnetism at zero absolute temperature indicated the existence of a zero point
energy of rotation. (In 1913 he had invoked just such a zero point energy in an attempt to explain
certain anomalies in the specific heats of diatomic molecules (E36]. By 1915 he knew that his specific
heat argument was incorrect, however (FI).)

**The quantum theory is not mentioned in any of the EdH papers, however.

248

RELATIVITY, THE GENERAL THEORY

of a wire. A fixed solenoid is placed coaxially around the cylinder. The iron is
magnetized by an alternating current run through the solenoid. The change AM
of the magnetic moment in the z direction induces a change A/ in the hidden
angular momentum due to the electron motions such that AM =

Angular momentum conservation demands that A/ be compensated for. Thus the
iron cylinder as a whole acquires an angular momentum —A/, since this body
may be considered rigid. The resulting angular velocity Aa would be given by
egQ^a — lmc^M if only the magnetic force were acting on the cylinder (Q being
the moment of inertia in the z direction). The true Aa results from the interplay
between the magnetic driving force and the restoring force due to the attachment
of the cylinder to the wire. It is clear that the experiment serves to determine g if
the various other magnetic and mechanical parameters are known.

There are many complications. The cylinder has to be hung precisely on its
axis; the magnetic field has to be symmetric with respect to the cylinder axis; it
also has to be uniform in order to give a simple meaning to AM; the effect of the
earth’s magnetic field needs to be compensated for; there may be effects due to the
interaction of the alternating current with some remanent magnetization of the
cylinder. No wonder that the cylinder underwent ‘the most adventurous motions’
[E33]. Einstein and de Haas showed that many of these difficulties could be over-
come by an ingenious trick, the resonance method. The cylinder is hung by means
of a rather rigid glass wire. The mechanical oscillation frequency of this system
is matched with the frequency of the alternating current. The resulting resonance
makes it much easier to separate the desired effect from perturbing influences.*

Einstein and de Haas took two sets of measurements. They managed to obtain
agreement with their calculated value ^ = 1 by singling out one of these two sets.
Six years later — after it was clear that ^ = 1 is not the right value — de Haas
described what they had done.** ‘The numbers which we found [for are 1.45
and 1 .02. The second value is nearly equal to the classical value [^ = 1 ] so that
we thought that experimental errors had made the first value too large. ... We
did not measure the field of the solenoid; we calculated it. . . . We did not measure
the magnetism of the cylinder, either; we calculated or estimated it. All this is
stated in our original memoir. These preliminary results seemed satisfactory to us,
and one can easily understand that we were led to consider the value 1 .02 as the
better one . . .’ [Hla]. I am not aware of a similar confession by Einstein.

This section would not be complete without a few remarks about the transition
to the modern era. It is now known that ferromagnetism is almost purely a spin

* Additional information was obtained by measuring not only at resonance but also around resonance.
The many technical details of the measurement not discussed here can be found in Barnett’s article
in the Reviews of Modem Physics [Bl].

**I express the answers in terms of g, thereby slightly changing the wording of de Haas.

THE FIELD EQUATIONS OF GRAVITATION

249

effect. The orbital contributions of earlier days have turned out to be nearly
entirely quenched. The quantum mechanical theory of ferromagnetism, given by
Heisenberg in 1928 [Hlb] provided the basis for a refined treatment of the cor-
responding gyromagnetic effects [H2]. Experimentally, the g value for ferromag-
netic materials has been found to lie close to 2 (except for FeySg) with deviations
<10 per cent [S2]. The first experimental indications for ^ ^ 2 were published
in 1915 by Barnett (then at Ohio State University). In his earlier-mentioned paper
on the Barnett effect [B2), he concluded that ‘the magnitude ... is within the
experimental error equal to twice the . . . value computed,’ the latter value being
^ = 1. However, further measurements done by him in 1917 gave ^ ^ 1, ‘but
the experimental errors ... are such that great importance cannot, in my opinion,
be attached to the discrepancies [with his earlier results]’ [B4]. In the period
1918-20, three independent measurements of the EdH effect were reported. In
chronological order, these came from Princeton [S3], the ETH in Zurich [B5],
and Uppsala [Al]. The answers found were g ^ 1.96, 1.88, and 1.87, respec-
tively. From that time on, the ‘gyromagnetic anomaly’ (as it was often called) was
firmly established. Inevitably this led to fairly widespread speculations about
‘planetary motions of [positively-charged] constituents of nuclei’ [B6]. The first
one to suspect a connection between the anomalous Zeeman effect and this new
gyromagnetic anomaly was Alfred Lande [LI] in 1921, the same year Heisenberg
expressed the opinion in a letter to Pauli that g — 2 could occur only in ferro-
magnetic bodies [H3].

Since de Haas was from Leiden, where the spin was discovered, it was only
natural that I would ask Uhlenbeck whether the EdH effect had played any role
in the discovery of the electron spin by him and Goudsmit (knowing that the effect
is not mentioned in their paper). Uhlenbeck replied that he knew of the effect
because he was in Leiden but that this subject was not in the center of attention
at that time. ‘Had Ehrenfest thought it pertinent, he would surely have mentioned
it to us.’ Thus the EdH effect served to confirm rather than stimulate subsequent
theoretical developments.

As to Einstein, his interest in gyromagnetism continued after de Haas’s depar-
ture. In 1916 he published another paper on the EdH effect. It contains the design
of a new experimental arrangement* for determining g [E37]. He also remained
interested in the activities at the Reichsanstalt. In 1916 he was appointed member
of its Kuratorium (board of governors) and played an active role in the planning
and design of its experimental projects [K6].

Let us now return to our main topic, Einstein’s final formulation of his theory
of general relativity.

*The idea was to flip the remanent magnetization of a premagnetized iron cylinder. This method
has the advantage that the cylinder is exposed to a magnetic field for such a brief time s)

that irritating side effects are largely eliminated.

250

RELATIVITY, THE GENERAL THEORY

14c. The Final Steps

/. The Crisis. On the first of January 1916, when it was all over, Einstein wrote
to Lorentz, ^During the past autumn, the gradually dawning realization of the
incorrectness of the old gravitational equations caused me hard times (bdse Zei-
ten)* [E25]. It appears that this crisis occurred between late July and early Octo-
ber 1915. For on July 7, 1915, Einstein described to Zangger the subject of lec-
tures he had just given in Goettingen as ‘die nun schon sehr geklarte
Gravitationstheorie,’ the by now already quite clarified theory of gravitation
[E38]. A week later, he wrote to Sommerfeld about a tentative plan to write a
short treatise on relativity which was to be oriented toward a general theory of
relativity [E39]. But on November 7 he wrote to Hilbert, ‘I realized about four
weeks ago that my methods of proof used until then were deceptive’ [E40], and
on October 12, to Lorentz, ‘In my paper [of October 1914, [E16]], I carelessly
(leichtsinnig) introduced the assumption that [the gravitational Lagrangian] is an
invariant for linear transformations’ [E411. He abandoned this linear invariance
in a series of papers completed in November 1915, which culminate in the final
form of his gravitational equations, presented on November 25. On November 28
he wrote to Sommerfeld: “During the past month I had one of the most exciting
and strenuous times of my life, but also one of the most successful ones’ [E42]. All
these statements taken together convince me that Einstein still believed in the ‘old’
theory as late as July 1915, that between July and October he found objections
to that theory, and that his final version was conceived and worked out between
late October and November 25. In December he wrote with irony about his earlier
faith in the old version of the theory. ‘That fellow Einstein suits his convenience
(Es ist bequem mit dem E.). Every year he retracts what he wrote the year before
. . [E43].

What made Einstein change his mind between July and October? Letters to
Sonunerfeld [E42] and Lorentz [E251 show that he had found at least three objec-
tions against the old theory: (1) its restricted covariance did not include uniform
rotations, (2) the precession of the perihelion of Mercury came out too small by
a factor of about 2, and (3) his proof of October 1914 of the uniqueness of the
gravitational Lagrangian was incorrect. Einstein got rid of all these shortcomings
in a scries of four brief articles. ‘Unfortunately, I immortalized in [these] academy
papers the last errors made in this struggle’ [E42].

2. November the Fourth. Einstein presents to the plenary session of the Prus-
sian Academy a new version of general relativity ‘based on the postulate of covar-
iance with respect to transformations with determinant 1’ [E44]. He began this
paper by stating that he had ‘completely lost confidence’ in the equations proposed
in October 1914 [E16]. At that time he had given a proof of the uniqueness of the
gravitational Lagrangian. He had realized meanwhile that this proof ‘rested on
misconception,’ and so, he continued, ‘I was led back to a more general covariance
of the field equations, a requirement which I had abandoned only with a heavy

THE FIELD EQUATIONS OF GRAVITATION

251

heart in the course of my collaboration with my friend Grossmann three years
earlier.’ (It should be said that in matters of science a heavy heart never lasted
very long for Einstein.)

For the last time, I recall that Einstein and Grossmann had concluded [El 7]
that the gravitational equations could be invariant under linear transformations
only and that Einstein’s justification for this restriction was based on the belief
that the gravitational equations ought to determine the uniquely, a point he
continued to stress in October 1914 [El 6]. In his new paper [E44], he finally
liberated himself from this three-year-old prejudice. That is the main advance on
November 4. His answers were still not entirely right. There was still one flaw,
a much smaller one, which he eliminated three weeks later. But the road lay open.
He was lyrical. ‘No one who has really grasped it can escape the magic of this
[new] theory.’

The remaining flaw was, of course, Einstein’s unnecessary restriction to uni-
modular transformations. The reasons which led him to introduce this constraint
were not deep, I believe. He simply noted that this restricted class of transfor-
mations permits simplifications of the tensor calculus. This is mainly because
\/g is a scalar under unimodular transformations (cf. Eq. 12.14). Therefore the
distinction between tensors and tensor densities no longer exists. As a result, it is
possible to redefine covariant differentiation for tensors of rank higher than 1. For
example, instead of Eq. 12.13, one may use [E45]

t:: = — + (14.3)

Equation 12.17 can be similarly simplified. ‘The most radical simplification’ con-
cerns the Ricci tensor given in Eq. 12.20. Write*

, =-^ + rr

*" dx’' ”

dv^ _

where [W2]

d InV^

dx“

(14.4)

(14.5)

(14.6)

(14.7)

is a vector since \fg is a scalar; is the covariant derivative of v^. Therefore,
under unimodular transformations, decomposes into two parts, and each
of which separately is a tensor.

'The quantities 5 ^ correspond to Einstein’s in [£44].

252

RELATIVITY, THE GENERAL THEORY

Having described this splitting of the Ricci tensor, Einstein next proposed his
penultimate version of the gravitational equations:

= - kT„ (14.8)

covariant under local unimodular transformations. They are a vast improvement
over the Einstein- Grossman equations and cure one of the ailments he had diag-
nosed only recently: unimodular transformations do include rotations with arbi-
trarily varying angular velocities. In addition, he proved that Eqs. 14.8 can be
derived from a variational principle; that the conservation laws are satisfied (here
the simplified definitions Eq. 14.3 play a role); and that there exists an identity

d f ^dln^\
dx\ dx^ )

-kT

(14.9)

where T is the trace of T^. He interpreted this equation as a constraint on the
g^. A week later, he would have more to say on this relation.

In the weak-field limit, ^^ = ^7^4- (Eq. 12.29), one recovers Newton’s law
from Eq. 14.8. Einstein’s proof of this last statement is by far the most important
part of this paper. ‘The coordinate system is not yet fixed, since four equations
are needed to determine it. We are therefore free to choose"^ [my italics)

dx'"

= 0 ’

(14.10)

Then Eqs. 14.8 and 14.10 yield

Uh^^lKT^ (14.11)

which reduces to the Newton -Poisson equation in the static limit.

The phrase italicized in the above quotation shows that Einstein’s understand-
ing of general covariance had vastly improved. The gravitational equations do not
determine the (hence the unambiguously. This is not in conflict with caus-
ality. One may choose a coordinate system at one’s convenience simply because
coordinate systems have no objective meaning. Einstein did not say all this explic-
itly in his paper. But shortly afterward he explained it to Ehrenfest. ‘The appar-
ently compelling nature of [my old causality objection] disappears at once if one
realizes that ... no reality can be ascribed to the reference system’ [E43].

3. November the Eleventh, A step backward. Einstein proposes [E46] a
scheme that is even tighter than the one of a week earlier. Not only shall the
theory be invariant with respect to unimodular transformations — which implies
that ^ is a scalar field — but, more strongly, it shall satisfy

Vi = 1 (14.12)

•‘Wir dilrfen dcshalb willkurlich festsetzen . . Equation 14.10 is the harmonic coordinate condi-
tion in the weak-Bcld limit [W3].

THE FIELD EQUATIONS OF GRAVITATION

253

He writes the gravitational equations in the form

K = ( 14 . 13 )

where is the full Ricci tensor. However, Eqs. 14.7 and 14.12 imply that
= 0. Thus Eqs. 14.4 and 14.13 give once again Eq. 14.8, the gravitational equa-
tions of November 4.

Though not compelling, this new idea may seem simple. It is in fact quite mad.
Equation 14.12 together with Eq. 14.9 implies that T = 0. The trace of the
energy momentum tensor does vanish for electromagnetic fields but not for matter.
Thus there seems to be a contradiction, which Einstein proposed to resolve by
means of ‘the hypothesis that molecular gravitational fields constitute an essential
part of matter.’ The trace density we ‘see’ in matter, he suggests, is actually the
sum V of T and the trace of the gravitational field. Then V can be positive and
yet T = 0. ‘We assume in what follows that the condition T = 0 is actually
fulfilled.’

During the next two weeks, Einstein believed that his new equation (Eq. 14.12)
had brought him closer to general covariance. He expressed this opinion to Hilbert
on November 12. ‘Meanwhile, the problem has been brought one step forward.
Namely, the postulate \/^ = 1 enforces general covariance; the Riemann tensor
yields directly the gravitational equations. If my current modification ... is justi-
fied, then gravitation must play a fundamental role in the structure of matter.
Curiosity makes it hard to work!’ [E47].

One week later, he remarked that ‘no objections of principle’ can be raised
against Eq. 14.12 [E48]. Two weeks later, he declared that ‘my recently stated
opinion on this subject was erroneous’ [El].

4. November the Eighteenth. Einstein still subscribes to the demands of
unimodular invariance and \fg = 1. On the basis of this ‘most radical relativity
theory,’ he presents two of his greatest discoveries [E48]. Each of these changed
his life.

The first result was that his theory ‘explains . . . quantitatively ... the secular
rotation of the orbit of Mercury, discovered by Le Verrier, . . . without the need
of any special hypothesis.’ This discovery was, I believe, by far the strongest emo-
tional experience in Einstein’s scientific life, perhaps in all his life. Nature had
spoken to him. He had to be right. ‘For a few days, I was beside myself with
joyous excitement’ [E49]. Later, he told Fokker that his discovery had given him
palpitations of the heart [F2]. What he told de Haas [F2] is even more profoundly
significant: when he saw that his calculations agreed with the unexplained astro-
nomical observations, he had the feeling that something actually snapped in
him. . . .

Einstein’s discovery resolved a difficulty that was known for more than sixty
years. Urbain Jean Joseph Le Verrier had been the first to find evidence for an
anomaly in the orbit of Mercury and also the first to attempt to explain this effect.
On September 12, 1859, he submitted to the Academy of Sciences in Paris the text

254

RELATIVITY, THE GENERAL THEORY

of a letter to Herve Faye in which he recorded his findings [L2]. The perihelion
of Mercury advances by thirty-eight seconds per century due to ‘some as yet
unknown action on which no light has been thrown* ... a grave difficulty, worthy
of attention by astronomers.* The only way to explain the effect in terms of known
bodies would be (he noted) to increase the mass of Venus by at least 10 per cent,
an inadmissible modification. He strongly doubted that an intramercurial planet,
as yet unobserved, might be the cause. A swarm of intramercurial asteroids was
not ruled out, he believed. ‘Here then, mon cher confrere^ is a new complication
which manifests itself in the neighborhood of the sun.’

Perihelion precessions of Mercury and other bodies** have been the subject of
experimental study from 1850 up to the present.^ The value 43 seconds per cen-
tury for Mercury, obtained in 1882 by Simon Newcomb [Nla], has not changed.
The present best value is 43'^.! 1 ± 0.45 [W4]. The experimental number quoted
by Einsteinff on November 18, 1915, was 45" ± 5 [E48].

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, attempts at a theoretical
interpretation of the Mercury anomaly were numerous. Le Verrier’s suggestions
of an intramercurial planetf or planetary ring were reconsidered. Other mecha-
nisms examined were a Mercury moon (again as yet unseen), interplanetary dust,
and a possible oblateness of the sun [02, F3]. Each idea had its proponents at one
time or another. None was ever generally accepted. All of them had in common
that Newton’s 1 /r^ law of gravitation was assumed to be strictly valid. There were
also a number of proposals to explain the anomaly in terms of a deviation from
this law. Recall that Newton himself already knew that small deviations from the
power —2 would lead to secular perturbations of planetary orbits [N2). Two
kinds of modifications from Newton’s law were considered: a slightly different,
purely static law [03] or a 1/r^ law corrected with velocity-dependent terms [Zl]
(Lorentz’s theory of gravitation mentioned in Chapter 1 3 belongs to this last cat-
egory). These attempts either failed or are uninteresting because they involve
adjustable parameters. Whatever was tried, the anomaly remained puzzling. In
his later years, Newcomb tended ‘to prefer provisionally the hypothesis that the
sun’s gravitation is not exactly as the inverse square’ [N3].l[l[

Against this background, Einstein’s joy in being able to give an explanation
‘without any special hypothesis’ becomes all the more understandable. The tech-

•‘ . . . du a quclque action cncorc inconnuc, “cui theoriae lumen nundum acccsserit.” ’

••See, for examfrfe, the table in lW4l.

•fA detailed list of nineteenth century references is found in (01].

ft Einstein took this value from a review by Freundlich (F3]. For his appreciation of Newcomb, see
lE49a].

Vn the 1870s, it was briefly thought that such a planet (it was named Vulcan) had actually been
seen.

«For a detailed survey of Le Verrier’s and Newcomb's work, sec (Cl).

THE FIELD EQUATIONS OF GRAVITATION

255

nicalities of his calculation need not be described in detail since they largely coin-
cide with standard textbook treatments. The following conunents will suffice.

a) Einstein started from his field equations

* 0 (14.14)

for empty space (cf. Eq. 14,8) and his general condition y/g = 1, Eq. 14.12. The
modern treatment starts from = 0 and a choice of coordinate system such that
\fg = 1. Either way, the answers for the effect are, of course, the same, a fact
Einstein became aware of in the course of preparing his paper [E50].

b) On November 18, he did not yet have the g^R/2 term in the field equations.
This term plays no role in the actual calculations he made, as he himself stressed
one week later.

c) The approximation method developed in this paper marks the beginning of
post-Newtonian celestial mechanics. Einstein asked for a static isotropic solution
of the metric (as it is now called [W5]), His answer: g^ -

= 0, ^00 = —I + a/r {iji = 1,2,3), where a is an integration constant. He
expanded in a/r; yfg = 1 is satisfied to first order. It suffices to compute 1^* to
first order, Poo to second order. The results are inserted in the geodesic equations
(Eq. 12.28) and the standard bound-orbit caculation is performed. And so, one
week before the general theory of relativity was complete, Einstein obtained for
the precession per revolution: 2^K^a^/'Pc\\ — e^), which yields 43^/century {a
= semimajor axis, T = period of revolution, e = eccentricity; see [W6) for the
relation between this result and modern experiment).

d) Two months later, on January 16, 1916, Einstein read a paper [S4] before

the Prussian Academy on behalf of Karl Schwarzschild, who was in the German
army at the Russian front at that time. The paper contained the exact solution of
the static isotropic gravitational field of a mass point, the first instance of a rigorous
solution of Einstein’s full gravitational field equations. On February 24, 1916,
Einstein read another paper by Schwarzschild (S5], this one giving the solution
for a mass point in the gravitational field of an incompressible fluid sphere. It is
there that the Schwarzschild radius is introduced for the first time. On June 29,
1916, Einstein addressed the Prussian Academy [E51] to commemorate
Schwarzschild, who had died on May 1 1 after a short illness contracted at the
Russian front. He spoke of Schwarzschild’s great talents and contributions both
as an experimentalist and a theorist. He also spoke of Schwarzschild’s achieve-
ments as director (since 1909) of the astrophysical observatory in Potsdam. He
concluded by expressing his conviction that Schwarzschild’s contributions would
continue to play a stimulating role in science

I return to the November 18 paper. Einstein devoted only half a page to his
second discovery: the bending of light is twice as large as he had found earlier. ‘A
light ray passing the sun should suffer a deflection of K.7 (instead of 0'^.85).’ As
is well known [W7J, this result can be obtained with the help of the same solutions

256

RELATIVITY, THE GENERAL THEORY

for as mentioned above, applied this time to compute unbound orbits.* The
discussion of the momentous consequences of this result will be reserved for Chap-
ter 16.

5. November the Twenty-Fifth [El]:

= -k(T^ - \/2g^T) (14.15)

The work is done. The conservation laws are satisfied: \fg = 1 is no equation of
principle but rather an important guide to the choice of convenient coordinate
systems. The identity Eq. 14.9, thought earlier to have major physical implica-
tions, is replaced by a triviality. The calculations of the week before remain
unaffected:

Any physical theory that obeys special relativity can be incorporated into the
general theory of relativity; the general theory does not provide any criterion
for the admissibility of that physical theory. . . . Finally the general theory of
relativity is closed as a logical structure.! El]

Note that Eq. 14.15 is equivalent to R*" — g^RI2 = —kT’^.

In Section 12d, I mentioned that Einstein did not know the Bianchi identities

IW81

- 1/2

(14.16)

when he did his work with Grossmann. He still did not know them on November
25 and therefore did not realize that the energy -momentum conservation laws

Tf: = 0 (14.17)

follow automatically from Eqs. 14.15 and 14.16. Instead, he used these conser-
vation laws as a constraint on the theory! I paraphrase his argument. Start from
Eq. 14.15 but with the coefficient replaced by a number a to be determined.
Differentiate Eq. 14.15 covariantly and use Eq. 14.17. Next take the trace of Eq.
14.15, then differentiate. One finds that (Z?*^ + a(l — Aa)~'^R) , = 0 (use
“ 0)- Choose coordinates such that \fg = /. See if there is a solution for a.
One finds a ^ Einstein’s choice of coordinates is of course admissible, but it
is an unnecessary restriction that prevented him from discovering Eq. 14.16 as a
generally covariant relation. We shall see in Section 1 5c how the Bianchi identities
finally entered physics.

Einstein’s brief belief in Eq. 14.9 may have been a useful mistake, since he had
discovered that funny equation by the same compatibility method. In the case of
Eq. 14.8, the relations are r = —kT and = 0. The term on the left-hand side
in Eq. 14.9 arose because in the November 4 paper Einstein had redefined his

'Einstein inserted those into g^/ix^dx* ■> 0 and then applied Huyghens’ principle.

THE FIELD EQUATIONS OF GRAVITATION

257

covariant derivatives (cf. Eq. 14.3) in such a way that the conservation laws read
dT'l/dx^ — V^dg^/2dx* = 0 instead of Eq. 14.17.

On November 28, Einstein wrote to Sommerfeld that three years earlier he and
Grossmann had considered Eq. 14.15 ‘without the second term on the right-hand
side,’ but had come to the wrong conclusion that it did not contain Newton’s
approximation [E42].

On December 10, he wrote to Besso that he was ‘zufrieden aber ziemlich
kaputt’ [E52].*

On June 20, 1933, Einstein, exiled from Germany, gave a lecture at the Uni-
versity of Glasgow on the origins of the general theory of relativity. In concluding
this address, he said:

The years of searching in the dark for a truth that one feels but cannot express,
the intense desire and the alternations of confidence and misgiving until one
breaks through to clarity and understanding are known only to him who has
himself experienced them. [E52a)

14d. Einstein and Hilbert **

To repeat, on November 25 Einstein presented his final version (Eq. 14.15) of the
gravitational equations to the Prussian Academy. Five days earlier, David Hilbert
had submitted a paper to the Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften in Goettingen [H4)
which contained the identical equation but with one qualification. Einstein, having
learned the hard way from his mistakes a few weeks earlier, left the structure of
entirely free, except for its transformation and conservation properties. Hil-
bert, on the other hand, was as specific about gravitational as about all other
forces. Correspondingly (and this is the qualification), his T'" has a definite
dynamic form: ‘ . . . I believe that [my paper] contains simultaneously the solution
of the problems of Einstein and of Mie.’

In 1912-13, Mie had proposed a field theory of electromagnetism and matter
based on non-gauge-invariant modifications of Maxwell’s equations [M4]. It was
meant to be a theory of everything but gravitation.! Mie’s ideas attracted attention
in the second decade of this century but are now of historical interest only and of
no relevance to our present subject. Suffice it to say that it was Hilbert’s aim to
give not Just a theory of gravitation but an axiomatic theory of the world. This

‘Content but rather worn out.

“See also (M3|.

fMie’s ideas on gravitation were referred to in Chapter 13 For a comment by Einstein on Mie’s
electromagnetic theory, see (E52bl. The reader will find clear synopses of Mie’s theory in the texts
by Pauli [P2] and by Weyl [W9].

258

RELATIVITY, THE GENERAL THEORY

lends an exalted quality to his paper, from the title, ‘Die Grundlagen der Physik,’
The Foundations of Physics, to the concluding paragraph, in which he expressed
his conviction that his fundamental equations would eventually solve the riddles
of atomic structure. In December 1915, Einstein remarked that Hilbert’s com-
mitment to Mie’s theory was unnecessary from the px)int of view of general rela-
tivity [E53]. ‘Hilbert’s Ansatz for matter seems childish to me,’ he wrote some
time later [E54]. Justified though these criticisms are, Hilbert’s paper nevertheless
contains a very important and independent contribution to general relativity: the
derivation of Eq. 14.15 from a variational principle.

Hilbert was not the first to apply this principle to gravitation. Lorentz had done
so before him [L3). So had Einstein, a few weeks earlier [E44]. Hilbert was the
first, however, to state this principle correctly:

= 0

(14.18)

for infinitesimal variations g^{x) -* g^(x) + dg^(x) such that = 0 at the
boundary of the integration domain {R is the Riemann curvature scalar, L the
matter Lagrangian). It is well known that Eq. 14.18 leads to Eq. 14.15, including
the trace term, if L depends on ^ but not on their derivatives.*

Hilbert’s paper also contains the statement (but not the proof!!) of the following
theorem. Let / be a scalar function of n fields and let by\fg(jtx = 0 for varia-
tions x!" + {'‘(x) with infinitesimal Then there exist four relations

between the n fields. It is now known* that these are the energy -momentum
conservation laws (Eq. 14.17) if J = L and the identities (Eq. 14.16) if J — /?,
but in 1915 that was not yet clear. Hilbert misunderstood the meaning of the
theorem as it applied to his theory. Let / correspond to his overall gravitational-
electromagnetic Lagrangian. Then J depends on 10 -f 4 fields, the and the
electromagnetic potentials. There are four identities between them. ‘As a conse-
quence of . . . the theorem, the four [electromagnetic) equations may be considered
as a consequence of the [gravitational] equations. ... In [this] sense electromag-
netic phenomena are gravitational effects. In this observation I sec the simple and
very surprising solution of the problem of Riemann, who was the first to seek
theoretically for the connection between gravitation and light.’** Evidently Hil-
bert did not know the Bianchi identities either!

These and other errors were expurgated in an article Hilbert wrote in 1924
[H 5). It is again entitled ‘Die Grundlagen der Physik’ and contains a synopsis of
his 1915 paper and a sequel to it [H6], written a year later. Hilbert’s collected
works, each volume of which contains a preface by Hilbert himself, do not include
these two early papers, but only the one of 1924 [H7]. In this last article, Hilbert

*See the detailed discussion of variational principles in (WIO] and [M5]. The tensor T*" is defined
by Vgd'x - ^■SVg'r'{x)igJ.x)d‘x.

••Here Hilbert referred to the essay ‘Gravitation und Licht’ in Riemann’s Nachlass [R21.

THE FIELD EQUATIONS OF GRAVITATION

259

credited Amalie Emmy Noether (who was in Goettingen in 1915) with the proof
of the theorem about the four identities; Noether’s theorem had meanwhile been
published, in 1918 [N4]. By 1924 Lorentz (L4], Felix Klein [K7], Einstein [E55],
and Weyl [W1 1 ] had also written about the variational methods and the identities
to which they give rise (see further Section 15c).

I must return to Einstein and Hilbert, however. The remarkable near simul-
taneity of their common discovery raises the obvious question of what exchanges
took place between them in 1915. This takes me back to the summer of that year.
As was mentioned earlier, in late June-early July, Einstein had spent about a
week in Goettingen, where he ‘got to know and love Hilbert. I gave six two-hour
lectures there’ [E9].* The subject was general relativity. ‘To my great joy, I suc-
ceeded in convincing Hilbert and Klein completely’ [E56]. ‘I am enthusiastic about
Hilbert. An important figure . . .,’ [E39], he wrote upon his return to Berlin. From
the period in which Einstein lectured, it is clear that his subject was the imperfect
theory described in his paper of October 1914. I have already mentioned that
Einstein made his major advance in October-November 1915. 1 know much less
about the time it took Hilbert to work out the details of the paper he presented
on November 20. However, we have Felix Klein’s word that, as with Einstein,
Hilbert’s decisive thoughts came to him also in the fall of 1915 — not in Goettingen
but on the island of Rugen in the Baltic [K8].

The most revealing source about the crucial month of November is the corre-
spondence during that period between Einstein and Hilbert. Between November
7 and 25, Einstein, otherwise a prolific letter writer, did not correspond with any-
one — except Hilbert (if the Einstein archive in Princeton is complete in regard to
that period). Let us see what they had to say to each other.

November 7: E. to H. Encloses the proofs of the November 4 paper ‘in which

I have derived the gravitational equations after I recognized four weeks ago that
my earlier methods of proof were deceptive.’ Alludes to a letter by Sommerfeld
according to which Hilbert had also found objeaions to his October 1914 paper
[E40]. The whole November correspondence may well have been triggered, it
seems to me, by Einstein’s knowledge that he was not the only one to have found
flaws in this earlier work of his.

November 12: E. to H. Communicates the postulate ^/g = 1 (the November

I I paper). Sends along two copies of the October 1914 paper [E47].

November 14: H. to E. Is excited about his own ‘axiomatic solution of your

grand problem. ... As a consequence of a general mathematical theorem, the
(generalized Maxwellian) electrodynamic equations appear as a mathematical
consequence of the gravitational equations so that gravitation and electrodynamics
are not distinct at all.’ Invites E. to attend a lecture on the subject, which he plans
to give on November 16 [H8].

•Einstein and Hilbert began corresponding at least as early as October 1912, when Einstein was
still in Zurich.

26 o

RELATIVITY, THE GENERAL THEORY

November 15: E. to H. ‘The indications on your postcards lead to the greatest
expectations.’ Apologizes for his inability to attend the lecture, since he is overtired
and bothered by stomach pains. Asks for a copy of the proofs of Hilbert’s paper
[E57].

November 18: E. to H. Apparently Einstein has received a copy of Hilbert’s
work. The system [of equations] given by you agrees — as far as I can see —
exactly with what I found in recent weeks and submitted to the Academy’ [E58].

November 19: H. to E. Congratulates him for having mastered the perihelion
problem. ‘If I could calculate as quickly as you, then the electron would have to
capitulate in the face of my equations and at the same time the hydrogen atom
would have to offer its excuses for the fact that it does not radiate’ [H9]. Here, on
the day before Hilbert submitted his November 20 paper, the known November
correspondence between the two men ends.

Let us come back to Einstein’s paper of November 18. It was written at a time
in which (by his own admission) he was beside himself about his perihelion dis-
covery (formally announced that same day), very tired, unwell, and still at work
on the November 25 paper. It seems most implausible to me that he would have
been in a frame of mind to absorb the content of the technically difficult paper
Hilbert had sent him on November 18. More than a year later, Felix Klein wrote
that he found the equations in that paper so complicated that he had not checked
them [K9]. It is true that Hilbert’s paper contains the trace term which Einstein
had yet to introduce.* But Einstein’s method for doing so was, as mentioned ear-
lier, the adaptation of a trick he had already used in his paper of November 4.

Thus it seems that one should not attach much significance either to Einstein’s
agreeing with Hilbert ‘as far as I can see’ or to Hilbert’s agreeing with Einstein
‘as it seems to me’ [H4]. I rather subscribe to Klein’s opinion that the two men
‘talked past each other, which is not rare among simultaneously productive math-
ematicians’ [KlOj. (I leave aside the characterization of Einstein as a mathema-
tician, which he never was nor pretended to be.) I again agree with Klein ‘that
there can be no question of priority, since both authors pursued entirely different
trains of thought to such an extent that the compatibility of the results did not at
once seem assured’ [Kllj. I do believe that Einstein was the sole creator of the
physical theory of general relativity and that both he and Hilbert should be cred-
ited for the discovery of the fundamental equation (Eq. 14.15).

I am not sure that the two protagonists would have agreed.

Something happened between these two men between November 20 and
December 20, when Einstein wrote to Hilbert, ‘There has been a certain pique
between us, the causes of which I do not wish to analyze. I have struggled with
complete success against a feeling of bitterness connected with that. I think of you
once again with untroubled friendliness and ask you to try to do the same regard-

*Hilbcrt’s has a nonvanishing trace since his L refers to the Mie theory. 1 find it hard to believe
that Einstein went as far as thinking that Hilbert’s Thad to vanish [E59].

THE FIELD EQUATIONS OF GRAVITATION

261

ing me. It is really a shame if two real fellows who have freed themselves to some
extent from this shabby world should not enjoy each other’ [E60]. The full story
may never be known. However, in a reply to a query, E. G. Straus wrote to me,
‘Einstein felt that Hilbert had, perhaps unwittingly, plagiarized Einstein’s
[largely wrong!] ideas given in a colloquium talk at Goettingen.* The way Ein-
stein told it, Hilbert sent a written apology in which he said that ‘[this talk] had
completely slipped his mind . . .” [SI]. Whatever happened, Einstein and Hilbert
survived. The tone of their subsequent correspondence is friendly. In May 1916
Einstein gave a colloquium on Hilbert’s work in Berlin [E61]. On that occasion
he must have expressed himself critically about Hilbert’s approach.** In May
1917 he told a student from Goettingen, ‘It is too great an audacity to draw
already now a picture of the world, since there are still so many things which we
cannot yet remotely anticipate’ [S6], an obvious reference to Hilbert’s hopes for a
unification of gravitation and electromagnetism. Einstein was thirty-eight when
he said that. He was to begin his own program for a picture of the world shortly
thereafter. . . .

References

Al. G. Arvidsson, Phys. Zeitschr. 21, 88 (1920).

Bl. S. J. Barnett, Physica 13, 241 (1933); Phys. Zeitschr. 35, 203 (1934); Rev. Mod.
Phys. 7, 129 (1935).

B2. , Phys. Rev. 6, 239 (1915).

B3. N. Bohr, Phil. Mag. 30, 394 (1915).

B4. S. J. Barnett, Phys. Rev. 10, 7 (1917).

B5. E. Beck, AdP 60, 109 (1919).

B6. Cf. W. Braunbeck, Phys. Zeitschr. 23, 307 (1922) and also the discussion at the
end of [Hla].

Cl. J. Chazy, La Theone de la Relatwite et la Mecanique Celeste, Chap. 4. Gauthier-
Villars, Paris, 1928.

Dl. Cf., e.g.. Dictionary oj Scientific Biography, Vol. 4, pp. 324, 327. Scribner’s, New
York, 1971.

El. A. Einstein, PAW, 1915, p. 844.

E2. , letter to J, Laub, July 22, 1913.

E3. , letter to H. A. Lorentz, August 14, 1913.

E4. , letter to P. Ehrenfest, undated, probably winter 1913-14.

E5. , letter to H. Zangger, March 10, 1914.

E6. , Viertelj. Schr. NaturJ. Ges. Zurich 59, 4 (1914).

E7. , letter to M. Besso, early March 1914; EB, p. 52.

•lam forced to assume that this is in reference to the June- July talks, since it is hard to believe
that Einstein visited Goettingen in November 1915.

••Einstein to Ehrenfest: i don’t like Hilbert’s presentation . . . unnecessarily special . . . unneces-
sarily complicated ... not honest in structure (vision of the Obermensch by means of camouflaging
the methods) . . .’ (E62).

262

RELATIVITY, THE GENERAL THEORY

E7a. , letter to C. Seelig, May 5, 1952.

E8. , letter to P. Ehrenfest, April 10, 1914.

E9. , letter to H. Zangger, July 7, 1915.

ElO. , Die Vossische Zeitung, April 26, 1914.

Ell. in Kultur der Gegenwart (E. Lecher, Ed.), Vol. 3. Teubner, Leipzig, 1915.

E12. , PAW, 1914, p. 739.

El 3. , letter to H. Zangger, July 7, 1915.

E14. , letter to H. Zangger, undated, probably spring 1915.

El 5. , letter to H. A. Lorentz, December 18, 1917.

E16. , PAW, 1914, p. 1030.

E17. and M. Grossmann, Z. Math. Phys. 62, 225 (1913).

E18. , [E161, p. 1046, Eq. 23b.

E19. , [E161, p. 1083, the second of Eqs. 88.

E20. ,[£16], p. 1084.

E21. >[E16),p. 1085.

E22. ,lE16],p. 1066.

E23. and M. Grossmann, Z. Math. Phys. 63, 215 (1915).

E24. , [E16], pp. 1075, 1076, especially Eq. 78.

E25. , letter to H. A. Lorentz, January 1, 1916.

E26. , letter to T. Levi-Civita, April 14, 1915.

E27. , letter to P. Straneo, January 7, 1915.

E28. 1915, p. 315.

E29. in Kultur der Gegenwart (E. Lecher, Ed.), Vol. 3. Teubner, Leipzig, 1915.

E30. , i4(iP47, 879 (1915).

E31. , letter to M. Besso, February 12, 1915; EB, p. 57.

E32. , Naturw. 3, 237 (1915).

E33. and W. de Haas, Verb. Deutsch. Phys. Ges. 17, 152 (1915); correction, 17,

203(1915).

E34. and W. de Haas, Versl. K. Ak. Amsterdam 23, 1449 (1915).

E35. and W. de Haas, Proc. K. Ak. Amsterdam 18, 696 (1915).

E36. and O. Stern, AdP 551 (1913).

E37. , Verb. Deutsch. Phys. Ges. 18, 173 (1916).

E38. , letter to H. Zangger, July 7, 1915.

E39. , letter to A. Sommcrfeld, July 15, 1915. Reprinted in Einstein/ Sommerjeld

Briefwechsel (A. Hermann, Ed.), p. 30. Schwabe, Stuttgart, 1968.

E40. , letter to D. Hilbert, Novem^r 7, 1915.

E41. , letter to H. A. Lorentz, October 12, 1915.

E42. , letter to A. Sommerfeld, November 28, 1915. Reprinted in Einstein/Som-

merfeld Briefwechsel, p. 32.

E43. , letter to P. Ehrenfest, December 26, 1915.

E44. 1915, p. 778.

E45. ,[E44], Eq. 5a.

E46. 1915, p. 799.

E47. , letter to D. Hilbert, November 12, 1915.

E48. ,P.4H^, 1915, p. 831.

E49. , letter to P. Ehrenfest, January 17, 1916.

E49a. , Science 69, 248 (1929).

THE FIELD EQUATIONS OF GRAVITATION

263

E50. ,[E48], p. 831.

E51. , PAW, 1916, p. 768, footnote 1.

E52. , letter to M. Besso, December 10, 1915; EB, p. 59.

E52a. , The Origins of the General Theory of Relativity. Jackson, Wylie, Glasgow,

1933.

E52b. and J. Grommer, PAW, 1927, p. 3.

E53. , letter to A. Sommerfeld, December 9, 1915. Reprinted in Einstein/Som-

merfeld Briefwechsel, p. 36.

E54. , letter to H. Weyl, November 23, 1916.

E55. , PAW, 1916, p. nil.

E56. , letter to W. J. de Haas, undated, probably August 1915.

E57. , letter to D. Hilbert, undated, very probably November 15, 1915.

E58. , letter to D. Hilbert, November 18, 1915.

E59. J. Earman and C. Glymour, Arch. Hist. Ex. Sci. 19, 291 (1978).

E60. A. Einstein, letter to D. Hilbert, December 20, 1915.

E61. , letter to D. Hilbert, May 25, 1916.

E62. , letter to P. Ehrenfest, May 24, 1916.

FI. A. D. Fokker, AdP 43, 810 (1914).

F2. , Ned. Tydschr. Natuurk. 21, 125 (1955).

F3. E. Freundlich, Astr. Nachr. 201, 51 (1915).

HI. B. Hoffmann, Proc. Einstein Symposium Jerusalem, 1979.

HI a. W. de Haas in Proceedings of the Third Solvay Conference, April 1921, p. 206.

Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1923.

Hlb. W. Heisenberg, Z. Phys. 49, 619 (1928).

H2. S. P. Heims and E. T. Jaynes, Rev. Mod. Phys. 34, 143 (1962).

H3. W. Heisenberg, letter to W. Pauli, December 17, 1921. See W. Pauli: Scientific
Correspondence, Vol. 1, p. 48. Springer, New York, 1979.

H4. D. Hilbert, Goett. Nachr., 1915, p. 395.

H5. , Math. Ann. 92, 1 (1924).

H6. , Goett. Nachr., 1917, p. 53.

H7. , Gesammelte Abhandlungen, Vol. 3, p. 258. Springer, New York, 1970.

H8. , two postcards to A. Einstein, November 14, 1915.

H9. , letter to A. Einstein, November 19, 1915.

Kl. C. Kirsten and H. J. Treder, Albert Einstein in Berlin, 1913-1933, Vol. I, p. 95.

Akademie Verlag, Berlin, 1979. This volume is referred to below as K.

K2. K, p. 98.

K3. K,p. 101.

K4. K, p. 50.

K5. M. Klein, Paul Ehrenfest, Vol. 1, p. 194. North Holland, Amsterdam, 1970.

K6. K, p. 50.

K7. F. Klein, Gesammelte Mathematische Abhandlungen, Vol. 1, pp. 553, 568, 586.
Springer, New York, 1973.

K8. , letter to W. Pauli, May 8, 1921; Pauli correspondence cited in (H3], p. 31.

K9. — ,(K7],p.559.

KIO. , letter to W. Pauli, March 8, 1921; Pauli correspondence cited in [H3), p.

27.

Kll. .[K71,p. 566.

264

RELATIVITY, THE GENERAL THEORY

LI. A. Lande, Z. Phys. 7, 398 (1921).

L2. U. J. J. Le Verrier, C. R. Ac. Sci. Parts 49, 379 (1859).

L3. H. A. Lorentz, Proc. K. Ac. Wetensch. Amsterdam 23, 1073 (1915).

L4. , Collected Papers, Vol. 5, p. 246. Nyhoff, the Hague, 1934.

Ml. J. C. Maxwell, Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism (1st edn.), Vol. 2, p. 202.

Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1873.

M2. , ibid., pp. 200-4.

M3. J. Mehra, Einstein, Hilbert and the Theory of Gravitation. D. Reidel, Boston,
1974.

M4. G. Mie, AdP%7, 511 (1912); 39, 1 (1912); 40, 1 (1913).

M5. C. Misner, K. Thorne, and J. Wheeler, Gravitation, Chap. 21. Freeman, San
Francisco, 1970.

Nl. O. Nathan and H. Norden, Einstein on Peace, Chap. 1. Schocken, New York,
1968.

Nla. S. Newcomb. Astr. Papers of the Am. Ephemens 1, 472 (1882).

N2. 1. Newton, Pnncipia, liber 1, sectio 9. Best accessible in the University of Cali-
fornia Press edition, 1966 (F. Cajori, Ed.).

N3. S. Newcomb, Encyclopedia Bntannica, Vol. 18, p. 155. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, 1911.

N4. E. Noether, Goett. Nachr., 1918, pp. 37, 235.

01 . S. Oppenheim, Encyklopddie der Mathematischen Wissenschaften Vol. 6, Chap.
22, p. 94. Teubner, Leipzig, 1922.

02. ,[01], Chap. 4.

03. ,[01], Chap. 5.

PI. M. Planck, PAW, 1914, p. 742.

P2. W. Pauli, Relativity Theory, Sec. 64. Pergamon Press, London, 1958.

Rl. O. W. Richardson, Phys. Rev. 26, 248 (1908).

R2. B. Riemann, Gesammelte Mathematische Werke und Wissenschaftlicher Nachlass
(H. Weber, Ed.), p. 496. Teubner, Leipzig, 1876.

51. E. G. Straus, letter to A. Pais, October 1979.

52. G. G. Scott, Rev. Mod. Phys. 34, 102 (1962).

53. J. Q. Stewart, Phys. Rev. 11, 100 (1918).

54. K. Schwarzschild, PAW, 19X6, p. 189.

55. , PAW, 1916, p. 424.

56. Se, p. 261.

Tl. R. Tolman and J. Q. Stewart, Phys. Rev. 8, 97 (1916).

Wl. See, e.g., S. Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology, p. 16. Wiley, New York, 1972.

This book is quoted as W hereafter.

W2. W, p. 107.

W3. W, p. 163.

W4. W, p. 198.

W5. W, p. 176.

W6. C. M. Will in General Relativity (S. Hawking and W. Israel, Eds.), p. 55. Cam-
bridge University Press, New York, 1979.

W7. W, p. 188.

W8. W, p. 147.

THE FIELD EQUATIONS OF GRAVITATION

265

W9. H. Weyl, Space, Time and Matter, Sec. 28. Dover, New York, 1961.

WIO. W, Chap. 12.

Wll. H. Weyl, 54, 1 17 (1917).

Zl. J. Zenneck, Encyklopddie der Mathematischen Wissenschaften, Vol. 5, Chap. 2,
Part 3. Teubner, Leipzig, 1903.

The New Dynamics

15a. From 1915 to 1980

Einstein arrived at the special theory of relativity after thinking for ten years about
the properties of light. Electromagnetism was not the only area of physics that
attracted his attention during those years. In the intervening time, he also thought
hard about statistical mechanics and about the meaning of Planck’s radiation law.
In addition, he tried his hand at experiments. The final steps leading to his June
1905 paper were made in an intense burst of activity that lasted for less than two
months.

Einstein arrived at the general theory of relativity after thinking for eight years
about gravitation. This was not the only area of physics which attracted his atten-
tion during those years. In the intervening time, he also thought hard about quan-
tum physics and about statistical mechanics. In addition, he tried his hand at
experiments. The final steps leading to his November 25, 1915, paf)er were made
in an intense burst of activity that lasted for less than two months.

In every other respect, a comparison of the development of the special and the
general theory is a tale of disparities. In June 1905, Einstein at once gave special
relativity its ultimate form in the first paper he ever wrote on the subject. By
contrast, before November 25, 1915, he had written more than a dozen papers on
gravitation, often retracting in later ones some conclusions reached earlier. The
November 25 paper is a monumental contribution, of that there can be no doubt.
Yet this paper — again in contrast with the paper of June 1905 — represents only
a first beach-head in new territory, the only sure beacon at its time of publication
(but what a beacon) being the one-week-old agreement between theory and exper-
iment in regard to the perihelion precession of Mercury. Both in 1905 and in
1915, Einstein presented new fundamental principles. As I have stressed repeat-
edly, the theory of 1905 was purely kinematic in character. Its new tenets had
already been digested to a large extent by the next generation of physicists. By
contrast, general relativity consists of an intricate web of new kinematics and new
dynamics. Its one kinematic novelty was perfectly transparent from the start:
Lorentz invariance is deprived of its global validity but continues to play a central
role as a local invariance. However, the new dynamics contained in the equations
of general relativity has not been fully fathomed either during Einstein’s life or in
the quarter of a century following his death. It is true that since 1915 the under-

266

THE NEW DYNAMICS

267

Standing of general relativity has vastly improved, our faith in the theory has
grown, and no assured limitations on the validity of Einstein’s theory have been
encountered. Yet, even on the purely classical level, no one today would claim to
have a full grasp of the rich dynamic content of the nonlinear dynamics called
general relativity.

Having completed my portrait of Einstein as the creator of general relativity,
I turn to a brief account of Einstein as its practitioner. For the present, I exclude
his work on unified field theory, a subject that will be dealt with separately in
Chapter 17.

As I prepare to write this chapter, my desk is cluttered. Obviously, copies of
Einstein’s papers are at hand. In addition, I have the following books within
reach: Pauli’s encyclopedia article on relativity completed in 1920 [PI) as well as
its English translation [P2], of particular interest because of the notes Pauli added
in the mid-1950s; several editions of Weyl’s Raum, Zeit, Materie (including the
English translation of the fourth edition [Wl]), of importance because the vari-
ances in the different editions are helpful for an understanding of the evolution of
general relativity in the first decade after its creation; the book by North dealing
with the history of modern cosmology to 1965 [Nl); the fine source book on cos-
mology published by the American Association of Physics Teachers [SI]; and, for
diversion, the collection of papers on cosmology assembled by Munitz [Ml], in
which Plato appears as the oldest and my friend Dennis Sciama as the youngest
contributor. Taken together, these books are an excellent guide to the decade
1915-25. They enable me to confine myself to a broad outline of this period and
to refer the reader to these readily accessible volumes for more details.

There are more books on my desk. The modern texts by Weinberg [W2] and
by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler [M2] (affectionately known as the ‘telephone
book’) serve as sources of information about developments in general relativity
during the rest of Einstein’s life and the years beyond. Finally, my incomplete
little library is brought up to date by a recent report of a workshop on sources and
detectors of gravitational radiation [S2], the Einstein centenary survey by Hawk-
ing and Israel [HI], the record of the centennial symposium in Princeton [W3],
and the two centenary volumes published by the International Society on General
Relativity and Gravitation [H2]. I have these five books near me for two reasons,
first to remind me that these authoritative and up-to-date reviews of recent devel-
opments free me from writing a full history of general relativity up to the present,
a task which in any event would far exceed the scope of this book and the com-
petence of its author, and second to remind me that my own understanding would
lack perspective if I failed to indicate the enormous changes that have taken place
in the ways general relativity is practiced today as compared with the way things
were in Einstein’s lifetime. I do indeed intend to comment on those changes, but
will often urge my reader to consult these recent books for further particulars.

268

RELATIVITY, THE GENERAL THEORY

In preparation for the subsequent short sections which deal more directly with
Einstein’s work, I turn next to a general outline of the entire period from 1915 to
the present.

The decade 1915-25 was a period of consolidation and of new ideas. The main
advances were the introduction in mathematics of parallel transport by Levi-Civ-
ita in 1917 [LI], a concept soon widely used in general relativity; the emergence
of a better understanding of the energy -momentum conservation laws as the result
of the work by Einstein, Hilbert, Felix Klein, Lorentz, Schroedinger, and Her-
mann Weyl; Einstein’s first papers on gravitational waves; and the pioneering
explorations of general relativistic cosmologies by Einstein, Willem de Sitter, and
Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Friedmann. The number of participating theoretical
physicists is small but growing.

There were also two major experimental developments. The solar eclipse expe-
ditions of 1919 demonstrated that light is bent by an amount close to Einstein’s
prediction [El] of November 18, 1915. (I shall return to this event in the next
chapter.) The first decade of general relativity ends with the announcement by
Edwin Powell Hubble in December 1924 of an experimental result which settled
a debate that had been going on for well over a century: the first incontrovertible
evidence for the existence of an extragalactic object, Messier 31, the Andromeda
nebula [H3].* Theoretical studies of cosmological models received even more
important stimulus and direction from Hubble’s great discovery of 1929 that the
universe is expanding: nebulas are receding with a velocity proportional to their
distance. In Hubble’s own words, there exists ‘ . . . a roughly linear relation
between velocities and distances. . . . The outstanding feature ... is ... the pos-
sibility that numerical data may be introduced into discussions of the general cur-
vature of space’ [H3a].** Still, the literature on cosmology remained modest in
size, though high in quality. f Several attempts to revert to a neo- Euclidean theory
of gravitation and cosmology were also made in this period [N4]. These have left
no trace.

The number of those actively engaged in research in general relativity continued
to remain small in the 1930s, 1940s, and early 1950s. Referring to those years,
Peter Bergmann once said to me, ‘You only had to know what your six best friends
vyjpre doing and you would know what was happening in general relativity.’ Stud-
i|^f cosmological models and of special solutions to the Einstein equations con-

*A brief history of cosmic distances is found in (W4l.

**The history of the antecedents of Hubble’s law as well as of the improvements in the determination
of Hubble’s constant during the next few decades is given in [N2].

+Thc most detailed bibliography on relativity up to the beginning of 1924 was compiled by Lecat
[L2]. See also (N3]. A list of the principal papers on cosmology for the years 1917 to 1932 is found
in (Rl].

THE NEW DYNAMICS

269

tinued. There was also further research on the problem of motion (which had
interested Einstein since 1927), the question of if and how the equations of motion
of a distribution of matter can be obtained as a consequence of the gravitational
field equations. By and large, throughout this period the advances due to general
relativity are perceived to be the ‘three successes’ — the precession of the perihelion
of Mercury, the bending of light, and the red shift— and a rationale for an
expanding universe.

However, in the 1930s a new element was injected which briefly attracted
attention, then stayed more or less quiescent for a quarter of a century, after which
time it became one of general relativity’s main themes. Principally as an exercise
in nuclear physics, J. Robert Oppenheimer and his research associate Robert Ser-
ber decided to study the relative influence of nuclear and gravitational forces in
neutron stars [01].* One of their aims was to improve the estimate made by Lev
Davidovich Landau for the limiting mass above which an ordinary star becomes
a neutron star. (Landau discussed a model in which this mass is ^ 0.001 O. He
also suggested that every star has an interior neutron core (L2a].) Their work
attracted the attention of Richard Chase Tolman. As a result of discussions
between Tolman and Oppenheimer and his co-workers, there appeared in 1939,
a pair of papers, one by Tolman on static solutions of Einstein’s field equations
for fluid spheres [Tl] and one, directly following it, by Oppenheimer and George
Volkofif entitled ‘On massive neutron cores’ [02]. In this paper, the foundations
are laid for a general relativistic theory of stellar structure. The model discussed
is a static spherical star consisting of an ideal Fermi gas of neutrons. The authors
found that the star is stable as long as its mass O. (The present best value
for a free-neutron gas is 0.7 0 and is called the Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit.)**
Half a year later, the paper ‘On continued gravitational attraction’ by Oppenhei-
mer and Hartland Snyder came out [03]. The first line of its abstract reads,
‘When all thermonuclear sources of energy are exhausted, a sufficiently heavy star
will collapse; [a contraction follows which] will continue indefinitely.’ Thus began
the physics of black holes, the name for the ultimate collapsed state proposed by
John Archibald Wheeler at a conference held in the fall of 1967 at the Goddard
Institute of Space Studies in New York [W5]. At that time, pulsars had just been
discovered and neutron stars and black holes were no longer considered ‘exotic
objects [which] remained a textbook curiosity. . . . Cooperative efforts of radio and
optical astronomers [had begun] to reveal a great many strange new things in the
sky’ [W6].

Which brings us to the change in style of general relativity after Einstein’s
death.

During Einstein’s lifetime, there was not one major international conference

‘"lam indebted to Robert Serber for a discussion of the papers on neutron stars by Oppenheimer
and his collaborators.

**For further details, see (M2], p, 627.

270

RELATIVITY, THE GENERAL THEORY

exclusively devoted to relativity theory and gravitation.* The first international
conference on relativity convened in Bern, in July 1955, three months after his
death. Its purpose was to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of relativity. Einstein
himself had been invited to attend but had to decline for reasons of health. How-
ever, he had written to the organizers requesting that tribute be paid to Lorentz
and Poincare. Pauli was in charge of the scientific program. Browsing through
the proceedings of the meeting! one will note (how could it be otherwise) that the
subjects dealt with are still relativity in the old style. This conference, now known
as GRO,^ had 89 participants from 22 countries. It marked the beginning of a
series of international congresses on general relativity and gravitation; GRl was
held in Chapel Hill, N.C. (1957), GR2 in Royaumont (1959), GR3 in Warsaw
(1962), GR4 in London (1965), GR5 in Tblisi (1968), GR6 in Copenhagen
(1971), GR7 in Tel Aviv (1974), and GR8 in Waterloo, Canada (1977). The
most recent one, GR9, took place in Jena in June 1980. The growth of this field
is demonstrated by the fact that this meeting was attended by about 800 partici-
pants from 53 countries.

What caused this growth and when did it begin? Asked this question, Dennis
Sciama replied: ‘The Bern Conference was followed two years later by the Chapel
Hill Conference organized by Bryce de Witt, . . . This was the real beginning in
one sense; that is, it brought together isolated people, showed that they had
reached a common set of problems, and inspired them to continue working. The
“relativity family” was bom then. The other, no doubt more important, reason
was the spectacular observational developments in astronomy. This began perhaps
in 1954 when Cygnus A — the second strongest radio source in the sky — was iden-
tified with a distant galaxy. This meant that (a) galaxies a Hubble radius away
could be picked up by radio astronomy (but not optically), (b) the energy needed
to power a radio galaxy (on the synchrotron hypothesis) was the rest mass energy
« 10* solar masses, that is, 10"^ of a galaxy mass. Then came X-ray sources in
1962, quasars in 1963, the 3°K background in 1965, and pulsars in 1967. The
black hole in Cygnus X-1 dates from 1972. Another climax was the Kruskal treat-
ment** of the Schwarzschild solution in 1960, which opened the doors to modern
black hole theory’ [S5]. Thus new experimental developments were a main stim-

•Thc Solvay conferences (which over the years have lost their preeminent status as summit meetings)
<ild not deal with these subjects until 1958 (M3].

t These were published in 1956 as Supplement 4 of Helvetica Physica Acta.

!Some call it GRl, not giving the important Chapel Hill meeting a number. Proceedings were pub-
lished in the cases of GRO, GRl {Rev. Mod. Phys. 29 , 351-546, 1957), GR2 ( CA^/?5 Report 1962),
GR3 (Conference Internationale sur les Theories de la Gravitation, Gauthier-Villars, 1964) and
GR7 (83]. Some of the papers presented at the GR conferences after 1970 are found in the journal
General Relativity and Gravitation.

**Here Sciama refers to the coordinate system introduced independently by Kruskal [Kl] and by
Szekeres (S4). For details see [M2], Chapter 31.

THE NEW DYNAMICS

271

ulus for the vastly increased activity and the new directions in general relativity.
The few dozen practitioners in Einstein's days are followed by a new generation
about a hundred times more numerous.

Now, in 1982, the beginning of a new era described by Sciama has already been
followed by further important developments. In June 1980 I attended the GR9
conference in order to find out more about the status of the field. Some of my
impressions are found in what follows. Each of the next five sections is devoted to
a topic in general relativity in which Einstein himself was active after 1915. In
each section I shall indicate what he did and sketch ever so briefly how that subject
developed in later years. In the final section, I list those topics which in their
entirety belong to the post-Einsteinian era.

15b. The Three Successes

In 1933 Einstein, speaking in Glasgow on the origins of the general theory of
relativity [E2], recalled some of his struggles, the ‘errors in thinking which caused
me two years of hard work before at last, in 1915, 1 recognized them as such and
returned penitently to the Riemann curvature, which enabled me to find the rela-
tion to the empirical facts of astronomy.'

The period 1914-15 had been a confusing two years, not only for Einstein but
also for those of his colleagues who had tried to follow his gyrations. For example,
when in December 1915 Ehrenfest wrote to Lorentz, he referred to what we call
the theory of general relativity as ‘the theory of November 25, 1915.' He asked if
Lorentz agreed with his own understanding that Einstein had now abandoned his
arguments of 1914 for the impossibility of writing the gravitational field equations
in covariant form [E31. All through December 1915 and January 1916, the cor-
respondence between Lorentz and Ehrenfest is intense and reveals much about
their personalities. Lorentz, aged 62, is calculating away in Haarlem, making
mistakes, correcting them, finally understanding what Einstein has in mind. In a
letter to Ehrenfest he writes, ‘I have congratulated Einstein on his brilliant result'
[L3]. Ehrenfest, aged 35, in Leiden, ten miles down the road, is also hard at work
on relativity. His reply to Lorentz's letter shows a glimpse of the despair that
would ultimately overwhelm him: ‘Your remark “I have congratulated Einstein
on his brilliant results" has a similar meaning for me as when one Freemason
recognizes another by a secret sign' [E4].

Meanwhile Lorentz had received a letter from Einstein in which the latter
expressed his happiness with Lorentz's praise. Einstein added, ‘The series of my
paf)ers about gravitation is a chain of false steps [Irrwegen] which nevertheless by
and by led to the goal. Thus the basic equations are finally all right but the der-
ivations are atrocious; this shortcoming remains to be eliminated’ [E5]. He went
on to suggest that Lorentz might be the right man for this task. ‘I could do it
myself, since all is clear to me. However, nature has unfortunately denied me the
gift of being able to communicate, so that what I write is correct, to be sure, but

272

RELATIVITY, THE GENERAL THEORY

also thoroughly indigestible.’ Shortly afterward, Lorentz once again wrote to
Ehrenfest. ‘I had written to Einstein that, now that he has reached the acme of
his theory, it would be important to give an expose of its principles in as simple
a form as possible, so that every physicist (or anyway many of them) may famil-
iarize himself with its content. I added that I myself would very much like to try
doing this but that it would be more beautiful if he did it himself’ [L4].

Lorentz’s fatherly advice must have been one of the incentives that led Einstein
to write his first synopsis of the new theory [Eb].* This beautiful, fifty-page
account was completed in March 1916. It was well received. This may have
encouraged Einstein — who did not communicate all that badly — to do more writ-
ing. In December 1916 he completed Liber die speztelle und die allgemeine Rela-
livitdtstheorie, gemeinverstdndlich** his most widely known work [ESaJ.
Demand for it became especially high after the results of the eclipse expedition
caused such an immense stir (see Chapter 16). Its tenth printing came out in 1920,
the twenty-second in 1972.

Einstein’s paper of March 1916 concludes with a brief section on the three new
predictions: the red shift, the bending of light, and the precession of the perihelion
of Mercury. In the final paragraph of that section is recorded the single major
experimental confirmation which at that time could be claimed for the theory: the
Mercury anomaly. In 1916 next to nothing was known about the red shift; the
bending of light was first observed in 1919.

Commenting on the status of experimental relativity in 1979, David Wilkinson
remarked:

[These] two early successes [ — the perihelion precession and the bending of
light — were] followed by decades of painfully slow experimental progress. It
has taken nearly sixty years finally to achieve empirical tests of general relativ-
ity at the one per cent level. Progress . . . required development of technology
and experimental techniques well beyond those available in the early 1920s.
[W7]

I refer the reader to Wilkinson’s paper for further remarks on the technological
and sociological aspects of modern relativity experiments. For a summary of the
present status of the experimental verification of general relativity (excluding cos-
mology), the reader should consult the report by Irwin Shapiro wherein it will be
found that, within the errors, all is well with the red shift (both astronomically
and terrestrially), with the bending of light, with the precession of the perihelia
of Mercury and other bodies, and also with the modern refined tests of the equiv-

•This article was published both in the Annalen der Physik and, also in 1916, as a separate booklet
I £7] which went through numerous printings and was also translated into English [£8].

••On the Special and the General Relativity Theory, a Popular Exposition. Under this title, the
English translation appeared in 1920 (Methuen, London). Einstein used to joke that the book should
rather be called ‘gemeinunverstandlich,’ commonly ununderstandable.

I Einstein at his desk in the Patent oflice,

Bern, ca. 1905.

(Einstein Archive, Courtesy AlP Niels Bohr Library)

II The cover of the Berliner lllustnrte,
December 14, 1919. The caption reads, in
translation: ‘A ne>v great figure in world his-
tory: Albert Einstein, whose investigations
signify a complete revision of our concepts of
Nature, and are on a par with the insights of
a Copernicus, a Kepler, and a Newton.’

Berliner

Jllu)trirte3crtung

5N'

HH'

*•

4 ^

III Einstein delivering a lecture
at the College de France, 1922.
fEinstein Archive, Courtesy AIP Niels Bohr Library)

IV Planck and Einstein in Berlin, June 28, 1929, the day on which Planck received
the first, Einstein the second, Planck medal.

(Courtesy AIP Niels Bohr Library)

V Einstein in California, early in 1931.
(He wears a Panama hat presented to him in
Balboa (PCZ), where the ship made a stop.)
Photo by Irving Lippman (Warner Bros and
First National)

VI Albert Einstein, Charlie Chaplin, and Elsa Einstein at the world premiere of ‘City
Lights’, at the Los Angeles Theater, Los Angeles, January 30, 1931.

VII Albert and Elsa Einstein near the Grand Canyon,
February 28, 1931

VIII Albert Einstein and his sister Maja,
1939. (The woman seen from the back is
the wife of Thomas Mann.)

IXa October 1, 1940: Ceremonies of induc-
tion to U.S. citizenship, Trenton, New Jer-
sey. To Einstein’s left is his stepdaughter
Margot Einstein.

IXb Trenton, October 1, 1940 Judge Phil-
lip Forman congratulates Einstein having
sworn him in as U S. citizen.

(Courtesy Mrs. Phillip Forman)

X Chico, Helen Dukas, and Einstein in
front of 1 1 2 Mercer Street
(probably taken in the early 1940’s).
(Courtesy Helen Dukas)

XI Cake presented to Einstein on his seventieth birthday (1949).
The formulae are taken from Appendix II in The Meaning of Relativity,
Third edition, Princeton University Press, 1950.

(Courtesy Helen Dukas)

XII The last known picture of Einstein,
taken in March 1955, in front
of 112 Mercer Street.

(Einstein Archive, Courtesy United Press International)

THE NEW DYNAMICS

273

alence principle [S6]. In another modern review, the current situation is sum-
marized as follows:

So far [general relativity) has withstood every confrontation, but new confron-
tations, in new arenas, are on the horizon. Whether general relativity survives
is a matter of speculation for some, pious hope for some, and supreme confi-
dence for others. [W8]

With fervent good wishes and with high hopes for further experiments with rock-
ets, satellites, and planetary probes, I hereby leave the subject of the comparison
between theory and experiment in general relativity.

What did Einstein himself have to say in later years about the three successes?
I described in the previous chapter his high excitement at the time he found the
right value for the precession of the perihelion of Mercury. He still considered
this to be a crucial discovery when he sent Lorentz his New Year’s wishes for
1916 (‘I wish you and yours a happy year and Europe an honest and definitive
peace’): i now enjoy a hard-won clarity and the agreement of the perihelion
motion of Mercury’ [E9]. As will be seen in the next chapter, the results of the
solar eclipse expeditions in 1919 also greatly stirred him personally. But, as is
natural, in later times he tended to emphasize the simplicity of the theory rather
than its consequences. In 1930 he wrote, ‘I do not consider the main significance
of the general theory of relativity to be the prediction of some tiny observable
effects, but rather the simplicity of its foundations and its consistency’ [ElO). More
and more he stressed formal aspects. Again in 1930 he expressed the opinion that
the idea of general relativity ‘is a purely formal point of view and not a definite

hypothesis about nature Non-[generally] relativistic theory contains not only

statements about things but [also] statements which refer to things and the coor-
dinate systems which are needed for their description; also from a logical point of
view such a theory is less satisfactory than a relativistic one, the content of which
is independent of the choice of coordinates’ (Ell). In 1932 he went further: ‘In
my opinion this theory [general relativity] possesses little inner probability. . . .
The field variables and 0^ [the electromagnetic potentials] do not correspond
to a unified conception of the structure of the continuum’ [El 2].

Thus we see Einstein move from the joy of successfully confronting experimen-
tal fact to higher abstraction and finally to that discontent with his own achieve-
ments which accompanied his search for a unified field theory. He did not live to
again use tiny effects for the purpose of advancing physical knowledge. Nor have
we to this day recognized any tiny effects which we can be sure pose a threat to
the physical principles with which we, perhaps clumsily, operate.

General relativity does predict new tiny effects of a conventional kind, however.
One of these caught Einstein’s attention in 1936 when R. W. Mandl pointed out
to him [M4] that if an observer is perfectly aligned with a ‘near’ and a ‘far’ star,
then he will observe the image of the far star as an annular ring as a result of the
bending of its light by the near star. The idea was, of course, not new. Eddington

274

RELATIVITY, THE GENERAL THEORY

knew already that one may obtain two pointlike images of the far star if the align-
ment is imperfect [E12a]. In any event, to Mandl’s delight [MS] Einstein went
on to publish a calculation of the dependence of the image intensity upon the
displacement of the observer from the extended line of centers of the two stars
[El 2b].* He believed that ‘there is no hope of observing this phenomenon.’ How-
ever, in 1979 it was shown that the apparent double quasar 0957 -f- 561 A,B is
actually the double image of a single quasar [W8a]. An intervening galaxy acts
as the gravitational lens [Ylj.

15c. Energy and Momentum Conservation; the Bianchi Identities

The collected works of Felix Klein contain a set of papers devoted to the links
between geometry on the one hand and group theory and the theory of invariants
on the other, his own Erlangen program. The last three articles of this set deal
with general relativity. (‘For Klein ... the theory of relativity and its connection
with his old ideas of the Erlangen program brought the last flare-up of his math-
ematical interests and mathematical production’ [W9].) One of those three, com-
pleted in 1918, is entitled ‘On the Differential Laws for the Conservation of
Momentum and Energy in the Einstein Theory of Gravitation’ [K2]. In its intro-
duction Klein observed, ‘As one will see, in the following presentation [of the con-
servation laws] I really do not any longer need to calculate but only to make use
of the most elementary formulae of the calculus of variations.’ It was the year of
the Noether theorem.

In November 1915, neither Hilbert nor Einstein was aware of this royal road
to the conservation laws. Hilbert had come close. I recall here some of his conclu-
sions, discussed in Section 14d. He had derived the gravitational equations from
the correct variational principle

« / = °

for variations where the are infinitesimal and vanish on

the boundary of the integration domain. Without proof, he had also slated the
theorem that if / is a scalar function of n fields and if

h ^ j \fg cfx = Q for JC" — x' + f (15.2)

then there exist four identities between the n fields. He believed that these ident-
ities meant that electromagnetism is a consequence of gravitation and failed to see
that this theorem at once yields the conservation laws [H4]. In a sequel to his
work of 1915, presented in December 1916 [H5], his interpretation of Eq. 15.2
had not changed. (In view of the relations between Hilbert and Einstein, it is of
interest to note that in this last paper Hilbert refers to his subject as ‘the new

•For references to later calculations of this effect, see [S6a].

THE NEW DYNAMICS

275

physics of Einstein’s relativity principle’ [H61.) As for Einstein, in 1914 [El 3]
and again on November 4, 1915, [El 4] he had derived the field equations of grav-
itation from a variational principle— but in neither case did he have the correct
field equations. In his paper of November 25, 1915, [El 5] energy -momentum
conservation appears as a constraint on the theory rather than as an almost
immediate consequence of general covariance; no variational principle is used.

I repeat one last time that neither Hilbert nor Einstein was aware of the Bian-
chi identities in that crucial November. Let us see how these matters were straight-
ened out in subsequent years.

The conservation laws are the one issue on which Einstein’s synopsis of March
1916 [E61 is weak. A variational principle is introduced but only for the case of
pure gravitation; the mathematics is incorrect;* matter is introduced in a plausible
but nonsystematic way ([E6|, Section 16) and the conservation laws are verified
by explicit computation rather than by an invariance argument ([E6], Section 17).
In October 1916 Einstein came back to energy-momentum conservation [El 6].**
This time he gave a general proof (free of coordinate conditions) that for any
matter Lagrangian L the energy-momentum tensor satisfies

7^; = 0 (15.3)

as a consequence of the gravitational field equations. I shall return shortly to this
paper, but first must note another development.

In August 1917 Hermann Weyl finally decoded the variational principle (Eq.
15.2) [WIO). Let us assume (he said) that the are infinitesimal and that ^ and
its derivatives vanish on the boundary of the integration domain. Then for the case
that J = L, it follows that Eq. 15.3 holds true, whereas if / = /? we obtain-f-

{R^ - 'Ag^R), = 0 (15.4)

A correspondence between Felix Klein and Hilbert, published by Klein early in
1918 [K4], shows that also in Goettingen circles it had rapidly become clear that
the principle (Eq. 15.2), properly used in the case of general relativity, gives rise
to eight rather than four identities, four for / = L and four for ] — R.

Interestingly enough, in 1917 the experts were not aware that Weyl’s derivation
of Eq. 15.4 by variational techniques was a brand new method for obtaining a
long-known result. Neither Hilbert nor Klein (nor, of course, Einstein) realized
that Eq. 15.4, the contracted Bianchi identities, had been derived much earlier,
first by the German mathematician Aurel Voss in 1880, then independently by

*As Bargmann pointed out to me, Einstein first specializes to the coordinate condition \/g = 1 and
then introduces a variational principle without a Lagrange multiplier for this condition.

**An English translation of this paper is included in the well-known collection of papers by Einstein,
Lorentz, Minkowksi, and Weyl (S7],

fFor this way of deriving Eqs. 15.3 and 15.4, see |WU]. Other contributions to this subject arc
discussed in [P3]. For the relation of Wcyl’s results to those of Klein, see (K3].

RELATIVITY, THE GENERAL THEORY

276

Ricci in 1889, and then, again independently, in 1902 by Klein’s former pupil
Luigi Bianchi.* The name Bianchi appears neither in any of the five editions of
Weyl’s Raum, Zeit, Materie (the fifth edition appeared in 1923) nor in Pauli’s
review article of 1921 (PI). In 1920, Eddington wrote in his book Space, Time
and Gravitation, ‘I doubt whether anyone has performed the laborious task of
verifying these identities by straightforward algebra [E17]. The next year he per-
formed this task himself [E18]. In 1922 a simpler derivation was given (Jl), soon
followed by the remark that Eq. 15.4 follows from

= 0 (' 5 . 5 )

now known as the Bianchi identities, where is the Riemann curvature tensor
[H7].** Harward, the author of this paper, remarked, ‘I discovered the general
theorem [Eq. 15.5) for myself, but I can hardly believe that it has not been dis-
covered before.* This surmise was, of course, quite correct. Indeed, Eq. 15.5 was
the relation discovered by the old masters, as was finally brought to the attention
of a new generation by the Dutch mathematicians Jan Schouten and Dirk Struik
in 1924: Tt may be of interest to mention that this theorem [Eq. 15.5] is known
especially in Germany and Italy as Bianchi*s Identity* [S9].

From a modern point of view, the identities 15.3 and 15.4 are special conse-
quences of a celebrated theorem of Emmy Noether, who herself participated in
the Goettingen debates on the energy -momentum conservation laws. She had
moved to Goettingen in April 1915. Soon thereafter her advice was asked. ‘Emmy
Noether, whose help I sought in clarifying questions concerning my energy law
. . Hilbert wrote to Klein [K4]. ‘You know that Fraulein Noether continues to
advise me in my work,’ Klein wrote to Hilbert [K4]. At that time, Noether herself
told a friend that a team in Goettingen, to which she also belonged, was perform-
ing calculations of the most difficult kind for Einstein but that ‘none of us under-
stands what they are good for* [Dlj. Her own work on the relation between
invariance under groups of continuous transformations and conservation theorems
was published in 1918 [N5]. Noether’s theorem has become an essential tool in
modem theoretical physics. In her own oeuvre, this theorem represents only a
sideline. After her death, Einstein wrote of her, ‘In the judgment of the most com-
petent living mathematicians, Fraulein Noether was the most significant creative
mathematical genius since the higher education of women began’ [El 9].

Let us return to Einstein’s article of October 1916. The principal point of that
paper is not so much the differential as the integral conservation laws. As is now

♦For more historical details, see the second edition of Schouten’s book on Ricci calculus [88].
••Equation 15.4 follows from Eq. 15.5 by contraction and by the use of symmetry properties of the
Riemann tensor (W12].

THE NEW DYNAMICS

211

well known, this is not a trivial problem. Equation 15.3 can equivalently be writ-
ten in the form

dx''

- = 0

(15.6)

The second term — which accounts for the possibility of exchanging energy -
momentum between the gravitational field and matter — complicates the transition
from differential to integral laws by simple integration over spatial domains. Ein-
stein found a way out of this technical problem. He was the first to cast Eq. 15.6
in the form of a vanishing divergence [El 6]. He noted that since the curvature
scalar R is linear in the second derivatives of the one can uniquely define a

quantity R* which depends only on the and their first derivatives by means

of the relation

J R \/g (tx ^ R*d*x + surface term

(15.7)

Next define an object by

(15.8)

With the help of the gravitational field equations, it can be shown that Eq. 1 5.6
can be cast in the alternative form

£;(\/i rr + 0 = 0

(15.9)

Therefore, one can define

J (VJ r:+ Od’x

(15.10)

as the total energy -momentum of a closed system. Einstein emphasized that,
despite appearances, Eq. 1 5.9 is fully covariant. However, the quantity is not
a generally covariant tensor density. Rather, it is a tensor only relative to affine
transformations.

These results are of particular interest in that they show how Einstein was both
undaunted by and quite at home with Riemannian geometry, which he handled
with ingenuity. In those years, he would tackle difficult mathematical questions
only if compelled by physical motivations. I can almost hear him say, ‘General
relativity is right. One must be able to give meaning to the total energy and
momentum of a closed system. I am going to find out how.’ I regard it as no
accident that in his October 1916 paper Einstein took the route from Eq. 15.9 to
Eq. 15.6 rather than the other way around! For details of the derivation of Eq,
15.9 and the proof that is an affine tensor, I refer the reader to Pauli’s review
article [P4] and the discussion of the energy -momentum pseudotensor by Landau
and Lifshitz [L5].

278

RELATIVITY, THE GENERAL THEORY

The discovery of Eq. 15.9 marks the beginning of a new chapter in general
relativity. New problems arise. Since is not a general tensor density, to what
extent are the definitions of energy and momentum independent of the choice of
coordinate system? During the next two years, this question was discussed by
Felix Klein, Levi-Civita, Lorentz, Pauli, Schroedinger, and others,* as well as by
Einstein himself, who in 1918 came back to this issue one more time. The sig-
nificance of [Eq. 15.9] is rather generally doubted,’ he wrote. He noted that the
quantity can be given arbitrary values at any given point but that nevertheless
the energy and momentum integrated over all space have a definite meaning
[El 9b]. Later investigations have shown that is well defined provided that the
metric suitably approaches the Minkowski metric at spatial infinity.

Many related questions continue to be studied intensely in the era of renewed
activity following Einstein’s death. Examples: Can one calculate the energy in a
finite domain? Can one separate the energy into a gravitational and a nongravi-
tational part? Does purely gravitational energy exist? Is the total energy of a grav-
itating system always positive? A status report on these questions (many of them
not yet fully answered) is found in an article by Trautman [T2]. The last-men-
tioned question was the subject of a plenary lecture at GR9. This difficult problem
(known for years as the positive energy program) arises because by itself is not
positive definite. It was found in 1979 that positive definiteness of the total energy
can nevertheless be demonstrated [SIO]. After my return from GR9, 1 learned that
the original proof can be simplified considerably [W13].

15d. Gravitational Waves

At no time during GR9 did I sense more strongly how much general relativity
belongs to the future than when I listened to the plenary lectures by Kip Thorne
from Pasadena and Vladimir Braginsky from Moscow on the present state of
experiments designed to detect gravitational waves. So far such waves have not
been found, but perhaps, Thorne said, they will be observed in this century. Fif-
teen experimental groups, some of them multinational, are preparing for this
event.

None of these groups is planning to emulate Hertz’s discovery of electromag-
netic waves by terrestrial means. The probability of an atomic transition accom-
panied by gravitational radiation is some fifty powers of 10 less than for photon
emission. We have to look to the heavens for the best sources of gravitational
radiation, most particularly to exotic, violent, and rare stellar phenomena such as
the collapse of star cores into neutron stars or supernovas; or the formation of
black holes. Sources like these may produce intensities some fifty powers of 10
higher than what can be attained on earth. Gravitational antennas need to be built
which arc sensitive enough to overcome stupendous background problems. Work

♦This early work is described in Pauli (P5]. See also lE19al.

THE NEW DYNAMICS

279

is in progress on acoustical detectors, on improved Weber bars (named after
Joseph Weber, whose pioneering work in the 1960s did much to stimulate the
present worldwide efforts [ W14]) and monocrystals, and on electromagnetic detec-
tors, such as laser interferometers. These devices are designed to explore the fre-
quency range from about 100 Hz to 10 kHz. The use of space probes in the search
for gravitational waves (in the range lO'^-lO"'* Hz) by Doppler tracking is also
being contemplated. Detector studies have led to a burgeoning new technology,
quantum electronics [Cl]. The hope is not just to observe gravitational waves but
to use them for a new kind of experimental astronomy. When these waves pass
through matter, they will absorb and scatter vastly less even than neutrinos do.
Therefore, they will be the best means we may ever have for exploring what hap-
pens in the interior of superdense matter. It is anticipated that gravitational wave
astronomy may inform us about the dynamics of the evolution of supernova cores,
neutron stars, and black holes. In addition, it may well be that gravitational waves
will provide us with experimental criteria for distinguishing between the orthodox
Einsteinian general relativity and some of its modern variants.

Detailed accounts and literature referring to all these extraordinarily interesting
and challenging aspects of gravitational wave physics are found in some of the
books mentioned earlier in this chapter. I mention in particular the proceedings
of a 1978 workshop [S2], the chapter by Weber in the GRG book [H2], the chap-
ters by Douglass and Braginsky and by Will in the Hawking- Israel book [HI],
and the review of reviews completed in 1980 by Thorne [T3]. All these papers
reveal a developing interaction between astrophysics, particle physics, and general
relativity. They also show that numerical relativity has taken great strides with
the help of ever-improving computers.

Einstein contributed the quadrupole formula.

Even before relativity, Lorentz had conjectured in 1900 that gravitation ‘can be
attributed to actions which do not propagate with a velocity larger than that of
light’ [L6]. The term gravitational wave (onde gravifique) appeared for the first
time in 1905, when Poincare discussed the extension of Lorentz invariance to
gravitation [P6]. In June 1916, Einstein became the first to cast these qualitative
ideas into explicit form [E20]. He used the weak-field approximation:

(15.11)

where is the Minkowski metric, \h^\ « 1, and terms of higher order than
the first in are neglected throughout. For the source-free case, he showed that
the quantities

h^- (15.12)

satisfy (□ is the Dalembertian)

Uh^ » 0

(15.13)

28 o

RELATIVITY, THE GENERAL THEORY

in a coordinate system for which the 'gauge condition’

= 0

(15.14)

holds true (Eq. 15.14 is sometimes called the Hilbert condition since Hilbert was
the first to prove in general that the coordinate condition Eq. 15.14 can always be
satisfied to the first order \nh^ [H5]).

Einstein noted not only that in the weak-field approximation there exist grav-
itational waves which propagate with light velocity but also that only two of the
ten have independent physical significance, or, as we now say, that there are
only two helicity states. He also pointed out that the existence of radiationless
stable interatomic orbits is equally mysterious from the electromagnetic as from
the gravitational point of view! ‘It seems that the quantum theory will have to
modify not only Maxwell’s electrodynamics but also the new gravitational theory.’
Perhaps this renewed concern with quantum physics spurred him, a few months
later, to make one of his great contributions to quantum electrodynamics: in the
fall of 1916 he introduced the concepts of spontaneous and induced transitions and
gave a new derivation of Planck’s radiation law [E21].

In the same June 1916 paper, Einstein also attempted to calculate the amount
of gravitational radiation emitted by an excited isolated mechanical system with
linear dimensions R. He introduced two further approximations: (1) only wave-
lengths X for which \/ R » 1 are considered and (2) all internal velocities of
the mechanical system are << c. At that time he mistakenly believed that a
permanently spherically symmetric mechanical system can emit gravitational
radiation. There the matter lay until he corrected this error in 1918 and presented
the quadrupole formula [E22]: the energy loss of the mechanical system is given

by*

(15.15)

where

Qv = J P (*■•*; - >45./) (15.16)

is the mass quadrupole moment and p the mass density of the source.

After 1918 Einstein returned one more time to gravitational waves. In 1937 he
and Rosen studied cylindrical wave solutions of the exact gravitational equations
(E23], which were analyzed further in [W15).

^Einstein’s result was off by a factor of 2. This factor is corrected in Eq. 15.15, which has also been
written in modernized form. Dots denote time derivatives. Equation 15.15 represents, of course, the
leading term in a gravitational multipole expansion. For a review of this expansion, see {T4].

THE NEW DYNAMICS

281

Do gravitational v^aves exist? Is the derivation of the quadrupole formula cor-
rect? If so, does the formula apply to those extreme circumstances mentioned
above, which may oflfer the most potent sources of gravitational radiation?

There exists an extensive and important literature on these questions, beginning
in 1922 with a remark by Eddington, who believed that the waves were spurious
and ‘propagate . . . with the speed of thought’ [E24]. In 1937, Einstein briefly
thought that gravitational waves do not exist (see Chapter 29). ‘Among the present
day theoretical physicists there is a strong consensus that gravitational radiation
does exist,’ one reads in [H8]. At GR9, the validity of the quadrupole formula
was the subject of a plenary lecture and a discussion session. In the closing months
of 1980, there appeared in the literature ‘a contribution to the debate concerning
the validity of Einstein’s quadrupole formula’ [W16].

The difficulties in answering the above questions stem, of course, from the non-
linear nature of gravitation, an aspect not incorporated in Einstein’s linearized
approximation. No one doubts that Eq. 15.15 holds true (in the long-wavelength,
slow-motion approximation) for nongravitational sources of gravitational waves,
such as elastically vibrating bars. The hard question is what happens if both
material sources and the gravitational field itself are included as sources of grav-
itational waves. The difficult questions which arise are related in part to the def-
inition of energy localization referred to in the previous section. For a recent
assessment of these difficulties see especially [E25] and [R2]. For a less severe
judgment, see [TSJ. I myself have not struggled enough with these problems to
dare take sides.*

Finally, as a gift from the heavens, there comes to us the binary pulsar
PSR1913 -h 16, ‘the first known system in which relativistic gravity can be used
as a practical tool for the determination of astrophysical parameters’ [W17]. This
system ofTers the possibility of testing whether the quantitative general relativistic
prediction of a change in period due to energy loss arising from gravitational quad-
rupole radiation holds true. At GR9, this loss was reported to be 1.04 ± 0.13
times the quadrupole prediction. This result does, of course, not prove the validity
of the quadrupole formula, nor does it diminish the urge to observe gravitational
waves directly. It seems more than fair to note, however, that this binary pulsar
result strengthens the belief that the quadrupole formula cannot be far off the
mark and that the experimental relativists’ search for gravitational waves will not
be in vain.

15e. G)smology

Die Unbegrenztheit des Raumes besitzt . . . eine groszere empir-
ischc Gewiszheit als irgend eine aiiszerc Erfahrung. Hieraus folgt
aber die Unendlichkeit keineswegs. . . .

Bernhard Riemann, Habilitationsvortrag, 1854.

■^1 am grateful to J. Ehlcrs and P. Havas for enlightening discussions on this group of problems.

282

RELATIVITY, THE GENERAL THEORY

/. Einstein and Mach. Einstein was in the middle of preparing his first synopsis
on general relativity when in February 1916 word reached him that the sufferings
of Mach had come to an end. He interrupted his work and prepared a short article
on Mach [ E26] which reached the editors of Natunuissenschaften a week before
his synopsis was received by the Annalen der Physik. The paper on Mach is not
just a standard obituary. It is the first occasion on which Einstein shows his excep-
tional talent for drawing with sensitivity a portrait of a man and his work, placing
him in his time and speaking of his achievements and of his frailties with equal
grace.

Mach was successively a professor of mathematics, experimental physics, and
philosophy. In the obituary, Einstein lauded a number of diverse contributions
but reserved his highest praise for Mach’s historical and critical analysis of
mechanics [M6], a work that had profoundly influenced him since his student
days [E27], when he was introduced to it by Besso [E28]. He had studied it again
in Bern, together with his colleagues of the Akademie Olympia [SI 1). In 1909 he
had written to Mach that of all his writings, he admired this book the most
[E29].* Initially, Mach seems to have looked with favor on relativity, for Einstein
wrote to him, again in 1909, ‘I am very pleased that you enjoy the relativity theory’
[E30]. In the obituary, Einstein cited extensively Mach’s famous critique of New-
ton’s concepts of absolute space and absolute motion and concluded, ‘The cited
places show that Mach clearly recognized the weak sides of classical mechanics
and that he was not far from demanding a general theory of relativity, and that
nearly half a century ago!’ [E26]. In his nineteenth century classic, Mach had
indeed criticized the Newtonian view that one can distinguish between absolute
and relative rotation. ‘I cannot share this view. For me, only relative motions exist,
and I can see, in this regard, no distinction between rotation and translation,’ he
had written [M7].** Einstein had Mach’s discussion of rotational motion in mind
when he wrote his own 1916 synopsis: its second section, entitled ‘On the Grounds
Which Make Plausible an Extension of the [Special) Relativity Postulate,’ begins
with the phrase:

Classical mechanics, and the special theory of relativity not less, suffer from an
epistemological shortcoming [the preferred position of uniform translation over
all other types of relative motion] which was probably emphasized for the first
time by Mach. (£6)

In 1910, Mach had expressed himself positively about the work of Lorentz,
Einstein, and Minkowski [M8). Around January 1913, Einstein had written to
him how pleased he was with Mach’s ‘friendly interest which you manifest for

♦Four letters from Einstein to Mach have been preserved, none from Mach to Einstein. These letters
arc discussed in essays by Herneck [H9] and by Holton (HIO), along with more details on the
relations between the two men.

••In this connection, readers may wish to refresh their memory about Newton’s rotating bucket
experiment and Mach’s analysis thereof; see, c.g., [W18]. In February 1916, Einstein gave a lecture
on the Foucault pendulum [E31 j.

THE NEW DYNAMICS

283

the new [i.e., the Einstein -Grossmann] theory’ [E32]. In his later years, however,
Mach turned his back on relativity. In July 1913 he wrote, ‘I must ... as
assuredly disclaim to be a forerunner of the relativists as I withhold from the
atomistic belief of the present day,’ and added that to him relativity seemed ‘to be
growing more and more dogmatical’ [M9]. These phrases appear in a book that
was not published until 1921. Even so, Einstein’s esteem for Mach never faltered.
‘There can hardly be any doubt that this [reaction by M.] was a consequence of
an absorption capacity diminished by age, since the whole direction of thinking of
this theory is in concordance with that of Mach, so that it is justified to consider
Mach as the precursor of the general theory of relativity,’ he wrote in 1930 [E33].
In the last interview given by Einstein, two weeks before his death, he reminisced
with evident pleasure about the one visit he had paid to Mach and he spoke of
four people he admired: Newton, Lorentz, Planck, and Mach [C2). They, and
Maxwell, and no others, are the only ones Einstein ever accepted as his true
precursors.

In a discussion of Mach’s influence on Einstein, it is necessary to make a clear
distinction between three themes.

First, Mach’s emphasis on the relativity of all motion. As we have just seen, in
this regard Einstein’s respect was and remained unqualified.

Second, Mach’s philosophy or, perhaps better, his scientific methodology.
‘Mach fought and broke the dogmatism of nineteenth century physics’ is one of
the rare approving statements Einstein ever made about Mach’s philosophical
positions [E34]. In 1922 he expressed himself as follows before a gathering of
philosophers. ‘Mach’s system [consists of) the study of relations which exist
between experimental data; according to Mach, science is the totality of these
relations. That is a bad point of view; in effect, what Mach made was a catalog
and not a system. Mach was as good at mechanics as he was wretched at philos-
ophy.* This short-sighted view of science led him to reject the existence of atoms.
It is possible that Mach’s opinion would be different if he were alive today’ [E35].
His negative opinion of Mach’s philosophy changed as little during his later years
as did his admiration for Mach’s mechanics. Just before his death,

Einstein said he had always believed that the invention of scientific concepts
and the building of theories upon them was one of the creative properties of the
human mind. His own view was thus opposed to Mach, because Mach assumed
that the laws of science were only an economical way of describing a large col-
lection of facts. [C2)**

*‘Autant Mach fut un bon mcchanicicn, autant il fut un deplorable philosophe.’

**10 his autobiographical sketch, Einstein mentioned that the critical reasoning required for his
discovery of special relativity was decisively furthered by his reading of Mach’s philosophical writ-
ings (E27|. I would venture to guess that at this point Einstein had once again Mach’s mechanics in
mind.

284

RELATIVITY, THE GENERAL THEORY

The third theme, Mach’s conjecture on the dynamic origins of inertia, leads us
to Einstein’s work on cosmology.

2. Einstein and Machos Principle. The central innovation in Mach’s mechan-
ics is the abolition of absolute space in the formulation of the law of inertia. Write
this law as: A system on which no forces act is either at rest or in uniform motion
relative to xxx. Then

XXX = absolute space Newton

xxx = the fixed stars
idealized as a
rigid system Mach

‘When ... we say that a body preserves unchanged its direction and velocity in
space, our assertion is nothing more or less than an abbreviated reference to the
entire universe' [MIO]. Those are Mach’s words and italics. He argued further
that the reference to the entire universe could be restricted to the heavy bodies at
large distances which make up the fixed stars idealized as a rigid system, since the
relative motion of the body with regard to nearby bodies averages out to zero.

Mach goes on to raise a new question.* Newton’s law of inertia refers to
motions that are uniform relative to an absolute space; this law is a kinematic first
principle. By contrast, his own version of the law of inertia refers to motions of
bodies relative to the fixed stars. Should one not seek a dynamic explanation of
such motions, just as one explains dynamically the planetary orbits by means of
gravitational dynamics or the relative motion of electrically-charged particles by
means of electrodynamics? These are not Mach’s own words. However, this
dynamic view is implicit in his query: ‘What would become of the law of inertia
if the whole of the heavens began to move and the stars swarmed in confusion?
How would we apply it then? How would it be expressed then? . . . Only in the
case of a shattering of the universe [do] we learn that all bodies [his italics] each
with its share are of importance in the law of inertia’ [Mil]. We do not find in
Mach’s book how this importance of all bodies manifests itself; he never proposed
an explicit dynamic scheme for his new interpretation of the law of inertia. Mach
invented Mach’s law of inertia, not Mach’s principle. Reading his discourse on
inertia is not unlike reading the Holy Scriptures. The text is lucid but one senses,
perhaps correctly, perhaps wrongly, a deeper meaning behind the words. Let us
see how Einstein read Mach.

Soon after Einstein arrived in Prague and broke his long silence on gravitation,
he published a short note entitled ‘Does There Exist a Gravitational Action Anal-
ogous to the Electrodynamical Induction Effect?’ [E36]. In this paper (based on
the rudimentary gravitation theory of the Prague days), he showed that if a hol-
low, massive sphere is accelerated around an axis passing through its center, then
the inertial mass of a mass point located at the sphere’s center is increased, an
effect which foreshadows the Lense-Thirring effect [T6].

•Sec alio [Hill.

THE NEW DYNAMICS

285

Enter Mach.

In this note Einstein declared, ‘This [conclusion] lends plausibility to the con-
jecture that the total inertia of a mass point is an effect due to the presence of all
other masses, due to a sort of interaction with the latter. . . . This is just the point
of view asserted by Mach in his penetrating investigations on this subject.’ From
that time on, similar references to Mach are recurrent. In the Einstein -Gross-
mann paper we read of ‘Mach’s bold idea that inertia originates in the interaction
of [a given] mass point with all other [masses]’ [E37]. In June 1913, Einstein
wrote to Mach about the induction effect as well as about the bending of light,
adding that, if these effects were found, it would be ‘a brilliant confirmation of
your ingenious investigations on the foundations of mechanics’ [E38]. In his
Vienna lecture given in the fall of 1913, Einstein referred again to Mach’s view
of inertia and named it ‘the hypothesis of the relativity of inertia’ [E39]. He men-
tioned neither this hypothesis nor the problem of inertia in any of his subsequent
articles until February 1917, when he submitted a paper [E40] which once again
marks the beginning of a new chapter in physics: general relativistic cosmology.

A few days before presenting this paper to the Prussian Academy, Einstein had
written to Ehrenfest, ‘I have . . . again perpetrated something about gravitation
theory which somewhat exposes me to the danger of being confined in a madhouse’
[E41]. In the paper itself, he mentions the ‘indirect and bumpy road’ he had fol-
lowed to arrive at the first cosmological model of the new era, an isotropic, homo-
geneous, unbounded, but spatially finite static universe. It must have taken him
a relatively long time to formulate this theory, since already in September 1916
de Sitter mentions a conversation with Einstein about the possibility ‘of an entirely
material origin of inertia’ and the implementation of this idea in terms of ‘a world
which of necessity must be finite’ [SI 2].

Einstein’s paper is no doubt motivated by Machian ideas. However, he begins
with a re-analysis of another problem, the difficulties with a static Newtonian
universe.* He remarked that the Newton- Poisson equation

A0 = 47rGp (15.17)

permits only (average) mass densities p which tend to zero faster than 1/r^ for r
-► 00 , since otherwise the gravitational potential would be infinite and the force
on a particle due to all the masses in the universe undetermined. (He realized soon
afterward that this reasoning is incorrect [E41a].) He also argued that even if 0
remains finite for large r, there still are difficulties. For it is still impossible to
have a Boltzmann equilibrium distribution of stars as long as the total stellar
energy is larger than the energy needed to expel stars one by one to infinity as the
result of collisions with other stars during the infinite time the universe has lived.
On the other hand (he notes), if Eq. 15.17 is replaced by

A0 — X0 = 47rGp (15.18)

*For details and references to cosmology in the nineteenth century, see especially [P7] and (N61. For
broader historiai reviews, see [Mil [M121.

286

RELATIVITY, THE GENERAL THEORY

(a proposal which again has nineteenth century origins), where p is a uniform
density, then the solution

0 = -

4tG

(15.19)

is dynamically acceptable.

Is it also physically acceptable? Constant p means an isotropic, homogeneous
universe. In 1917 the universe was supposed to consist of our galaxy and presum-
ably a void beyond. The Andromeda nebula had not yet been certified to lie
beyond the Milky Way. Today an individual galaxy is considered as a local dis-
turbance of a distribution which is indeed isotropic and homogeneous, to a degree
which itself demands explanation [SI 3]. Einstein had no such physical grounds
for assuming these two properties — except for the fact that, he believed, they led
to the first realization of the relativity of inertia in the model he was about to
unveiLThat this model is of the static variety is natural for its time. In 1917 no
large-scale galactic motions were yet known to exist.

Let us return to the transition from Eq. 15.17 to Eq. 15.18. There are three
main points in Einstein’s paper. First, he performs the very same transition in
general relativity, that is, he replaces

^ (15.20)

- >^g^ = -i(T^ (15.21)

Second, he constructs a solution of Eq. 15.21 that resolves the conundrum of the
Newtonian infinite. Third, he proposes a dynamic realization of the relativity of
inertia. His solution, the Einsteinian universe, had to be abolished in later years.
It will nevertheless be remembered as the first serious proposal for a novel topol-
ogy of the world at large. Let us see how he came to it.

Einstein had applied Eq. 15.20 with great success to the motion of planets,
assuming that far away from their orbits the metric is flat. Now he argued that
there are two reasons why this boundary condition is unsatisfactory for the uni-
verse at large. First, the old problem of the Newtonian infinite remains. Second —
and here Mach enters — the flatness condition implies that ‘the inertia [of a body)
is influenced by matter (at finite distances) but not determined by it [his italics).
If only a single mass point existed it would have inertia . . . [but) in a consistent
relativity theory there cannot be inertia relative to “space” but only inertia of
masses relative to each other.’ Thus Einstein began to give concrete form to
Mach’s ideas: since the determine the inertial action, they should, in turn, be
completely determined by the mass distribution in the universe. He saw no way
of using Eq. 15.20 and meeting this desideratum. Equation 15.21, on the other
hand, did provide the answer, it seemed to him,* in terms of the following solution
(ifl = 1,2,3):

*Hc also noted that this equation preserves the conservation laws, since * 0.

THE NEW DYNAMICS

285

Enter Mach.

A0 = 47rGp (15.17)

A0 — X0 = 47rGp (15.18)

*For details and references to cosmology in the nineteenth century, see especially [P7] and (N61. For
broader historiai reviews, see [Mil [M121.

288

RELATIVITY, THE GENERAL THEORY

1922. Friedmann shows that Eq. 15.20 admits nonstatic solutions with iso-
tropic, homogeneous matter distributions, corresponding to an expanding universe
[FI]. Einstein first believes the reasoning is incorrect [E45], then finds an error
in his own objection [E46] and calls the new results ‘clarifying.’

1923. Weyl and Eddington find that test particles recede from each other in
the de Sitter world. This leads Einstein to write to Weyl, ‘If there is no quasi-
static world, then away with the cosmological term’ [E47].

1931. Referring to the theoretical work by Friedmann, ‘which was not influ-
enced by experimental facts* and the experimental discoveries of Hubble, ‘which
the general theory of relativity can account for in an unforced way, namely, with-
out a X term’ Einstein formally abandons the cosmological term, which is ‘theo-
retically unsatisfactory anyway* [E48]. In 1932, he and de Sitter jointly make a
similar statement [E49]. He never uses the X term again [E50].

1954. Einstein writes to a colleague, ‘Von dem Mach’sehen Prinzip sollte
man eigcntlich viberhaupt nicht mehr sprechen,* As a matter of fact, one should
no longer speak of Mach*s principle at all [E51].

It was to be otherwise. After Einstein, the Mach principle faded but never died.
In the post-Einsteinian era of revitalized interest in general relativity, it has
become an important topic of research. At GR9, a discussion group debated the
issue, in particular what one has to understand by this principle. This question
can arouse passion. I am told that the Zeitschrift fiir Physik no longer accepts
papers on general relativity on the grounds that articles on Mach’s principle pro-
voke too many polemical replies. At stake is, for example, whether a theory is then
acceptable only if it incorporates this principle as a fundamental requirement (as
Einstein had in mind in 1918) or whether this principle should be a criterion for
the selection of solutions within a theory that also has non-Machian solutions.* It
must be said that, as far as I can see, to this day Mach’s principle has not brought
physics decisively farther. It must also be said that the origin of inertia is and
remains the most obscure subject in the theory of particles and fields. Mach’s prin-
ciple may therefore have a future — but not without quantum theory.

15f. Singularities; the Problem of Motion

In 1917 Einstein wrote to Weyl, ‘The question whether the electron is to be
treated as a singular point, whether true singularities are at all admissible in the
physical description, is of great interest. In the Maxwell theory one decided on a
finite radius in order to explain the finite inertia of the electron’ [E52]. Probably
already then, certainly later, there was no doubt in his mind (except for one brief

•For a detailed review of the various versions of the principle and a survey of the literature, see

(Gl).

THE NEW DYNAMICS

289

interlude) what the answer to this question was: singularities are anathema. His
belief in the inadmissibility of singularities was so deeply rooted that it drove him
to publish a paper purporting to show that ‘the “Schwarzschild singularity” [at
r = 2GM/c'^] does not appear [in nature] for the reason that matter cannot be
concentrated arbitrarily . . . because otherwise the constituting particles would
reach the velocity of light’ [E53].* This paper was submitted in 1939, two months
before Oppenheimer and Snyder submitted theirs on stellar collapse [03]. Unfor-
tunately, I do not know how Einstein reacted to that paper. As to the big bang,
Einstein’s last words on that subject were, ‘One may ... not assume the validity
of the equations for very high density of field and matter, and one may not con-
clude that the “beginning of expansion” must mean a singularity in the mathe-
matical sense’ [E54]. He may very well be right in this.

The scientific task which Einstein set himself in his later years is based on three
desiderata, all of them vitally important to him: to unify gravitation and electro-
magnetism, to derive quantum physics from an underlying causal theory, and to
describe particles as singularity-free solutions of continuous fields. I add a com-
ment on this last point (unified field theory and quantum theory will be discussed
in later chapters). As Einstein saw it, Maxwell’s introduction of the field concept
was a revolutionary advance which, however, did not go far enough. It was his
belief that, also, in the description of the sources of the electromagnetic field, and
other fields, all reference to the Newtonian mechanical world picture should be
eradicated. In 1931 he expressed this view in these words:

In [electrodynamics], the continuous field [appears] side by side with the mate-
rial particle [the source] as the representative of physical reality. This dualism,
though disturbing to any systematic mind, has today not yet disappeared. Since
Maxwell’s time, physical reality has been thought of as [being] represented by
continuous fields, governed by partial differential equations, and not capable of
any mechanical interpretation It must be confessed that the complete real-

ization of the program contained in this idea has so far by no means been
attained. The successful physical systems that have been set up since then rep-
resent rather a compromise between these two programs [Newton’s and
Maxwell’s], and it is precisely this character of compromise that stamps them
as temporary and logically incomplete, even though in their separate domains
they have led to great advances. [E55]

That is the clearest expression I know of Einstein’s profound belief in a descrip-
tion of the world exclusively in terms of everywhere-continuous fields.

There was a brief period, however, during which Einstein thought that singu-
larities might be inevitable. That was around 1927, when he wrote, ‘All attempts

*Actually, the singularity at the Schwarzschild radius is not an intrinsic singularity. It was shown
later that the Schwarzschild solution is a two-sheeted manifold that is analytically complete except
at r ■ 0. Two-sheetedness was first introduced in 1935 by Einstein and Rosen (E53a], who believed,
however, that the singularity at r ■ 2CAf/c^ is intrinsic.

290

RELATIVITY, THE GENERAL THEORY

of recent years to explain the elementary particles of nature by means of contin-
uous fields have failed. The suspicion that this is not the correct way of conceiving
material particles has become very strong in us after very many failed attempts,
about which we do not wish to speak here. Thus, one is forced into the direction
of conceiving of elementary particles as singular points or world lines. . . . We are
led to a way of thinking in which it is supposed that there are no field variables
other than the gravitational and the electromagnetic field (with the possible excep-
tion of the ‘cosmological term' [!]); instead one assumes that singular world lines
exist’ [E56]. These phrases are found in a paper, prepared with Jacob Grommer,
in which Einstein made his first contribution to the problem of motion. Let us
recall what that problem is.

Our knowledge of the left-hand side of the gravitational equations (Eq. 15.20)
is complete: and R are known functions of the and their derivatives and

of nothing else. To this day, our knowledge of the right-hand side, the source
is flimsy. However, the left-hand side satisfies the identities Eq. 15.4. This
piece of purely gravitational information implies that 7^ = 0. Thus general rel-
ativity brings a new perspective to energy -momentum conservation; gravitation
alone constrains its own sources to satisfy these laws. Consider now, as the sim-
plest instance of such a source, a structureless point particle, a gravitational mono-
pole. Its motion is necessarily constrained by TJT = 0. Question: In view of these
constraints, which are of gravitational origin, does the equation of motion of the
source follow from the gravitational field equations alone? In other words, was
the separate postulate of geodesic motion, already introduced by Einstein in 1914,
unnecessary? Einstein and Grommer showed that this is indeed true for the case
of a weak external gravitational field.

A few weeks later, Weyl wrote to Einstein, thanking him for the opportunity
to see the galley proofs of his new paper and ‘for the support [this paper) gives to
my old idea about matter’ [W201, adding a reference to an article he had written
in 1922 [W21] in which similar conclusions had been reached. Indeed, as was
discussed in particular by Havas [H12],* Einstein was one of the independent
originators of the problem of motion, but neither the only nor the first one.

Einstein’s reply to Weyl is especially interesting because it adds to our under-
standing of his interest in this problem at that time. ‘I attach so much value to the
whole business because it would be very important to know whether or not the
field equations as such are disproved by the established facts about the quanta
[Quantenthatsachen]’ [E58]. Recall that we are in 1927, shortly after the discov-
eries by Heisenberg and Schroedinger.

Einstein’s last im|X)rtant contribution to general relativity deals again with the
problem of motion. It is the work done with Leopold Infeld and Banesh Hoffmann

*Havas’s paper, which also contains a simple derivation of the Einstcin-Grommer result, is one of
several important articles on the problem of motion in modem guise found in a volume edited by I.
Ehlcrs [E571.

THE NEW DYNAMICS

291

on the A^-body problem of motion [E59, E60]. In these papers, the gravitational
field is no longer treated as external. Instead, it and the motion of its (singular)
sources are treated simultaneously. A new approximation scheme is introduced in
which the fields are no longer necessarily weak but in which the source velocities
are small compared with the light velocity. Their results are not new; the same or
nearly the same results were obtained much earlier by Lorentz and Droste, de
Sitter, Fock, and Levi-Civita (P. Havas, private communication). The equations
obtained have found use in situations where Newtonian interaction must be
included. ‘[These equations] are widely used in analyses of planetary orbits in the
solar system. For example, the Cal Tech Jet Propulsion Laboratory uses them,
in modified form, to calculate ephemerides for high-precision tracking of planets
and spacecraft’ [Ml 3].

In his report to GR9 on the problem of motion, Ehlers stressed the difficulties
of defining isolated systems in general relativity and the need not to treat the prob-
lem of motion as an isolated question. Rather, the problem should be linked with
other issues, such as the description of extended bodies and gravitational radiation
(see also [E61 ]).* ** A particle physicist might like to add that the problem of motion
should perhaps not be dissociated from the fact that a body has a Compton wave-
length, a parameter of little interest for big things — and vice versa.

15g. What Else Was New at GR9?

The program of GR9 showed that all the topics discussed in the preceding sections
continue to be of intense interest. I conclude by listing other subjects discussed at
that meeting. Exact solutions are now examined by new analytic methods as well
as by computer studies. Other classical interests include the important Cauchy
problem.*”^ Current experimental results (notably the huge precession of the per-
iastron of PSR 1913 -h 16) and future terrestrial and planetary experiments were
discussed, with refined tests of general relativity in mind. There was a debate on
relativistic thermodynamics, a controversial subject to this day. There were reports
on the fundamental advances of our understanding regarding the general structure
of relativity theory, with special reference to singularity theorems, black holes, and
cosmic censorship. We were told that the best of all possible universes is still the
Friedmann universe, not only in our epoch but since time began. These beginnings
(especially the earliest fraction of a second) were reviewed with reference to bary-

*For example, it so happens that in the approximation defined by Eqs. 15.11-15.14, sources move
with constant velocity (!) [E57].

**Mme Y. Choquet-Bruhat told me that Einstein did not show much interest in this problem when
she once discussed it with him.

292

RELATIVITY, THE GENERAL THEORY

on asymmetries in the universe. There were discussions on the neutrino contents
of the universe and on the 3°K background radiation.

And there was discussion of quantum mechanics in general relativistic context,
not only of Hawking radiation, the important theoretical discovery of the 1970s
that particles are steadily created in the background geometry of a black hole, but
also of quantum gravity and supergravity. To the listener at this conference, these
last two topics, more than anything else, brought home most strikingly how much
still remains to be done in general relativity.

References

Cl. C. Caves, K. Thorne, R. Draver, V. Sandberg, and M. Zimmerman, Rev. Mod.
Phys. 52, 341 (1980).

C2. I. B. Cohen, Sci. Amer., July 1955, p. 69.

Dl. A. Dick, Elem. Math. Beiheft 13 (1970).

El. A. Einstein, PAW, 1915, p. 831.

£2. , The Origins of the General Theory of Relativity. Jackson, Wylie, Glasgow,

1933.

E3. P. Ehrenfest, letter to H. A. Lorentz, December 23, 1915.

E4. , letters to H. A. Lorentz, January 12 and 13, 1916.

E5. A. Einstein, letter to H. A. Lorentz, January 17, 1916.

£6. , 49 , 769 (1916).

E7. , Die Grundlage der Allgemeinen Relatwitdtstheorie. Barth, Leipzig, 1916.

£8. and H. Minkowski, The Principle of Relativity (M. N. Saha and S. N. Bose,

Trans.). University of Calcutta, Calcutta, 1920.

E8a. , IJber die Spezielle und die Allgemeine Relativitatstheone Gemeinverstdn-

dlich. Vieweg, Braunschweig, 1917.

E9. , letter to H. A. Lorentz, January 1, 1916.

£10. , Forum Phil. 1 , 173 (1930).

Ell. , The Yale University Library Gazette 6, 3 (1930).

El 2. — , unpublished manuscript, probably from 1932.

E12a. A. S. Eddington, Space, Time and Gravitation, p. 134. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, 1920.

El 2b. A. Einstein, Science 84, 506 (1936).

E13. , PAW, 1914, p. 1030, Sec. 13.

E14. , P^ IV, 1915, p. 778.

E15. , PAW, 1915, p. 844.

£16. , P.4^V, 1916, p. 1111.

E17. A. Eddington, [E12a], p. 209.

E18. A. Eddington, Espace, Temps et Gravitation, Partie Thcorique, p. 89. Hermann,
El 8. A. Eddington, Espace, Temps et Gravitation, p. 89. Hermann, Paris, 1921.

El 9. A. Einstein, letter to The New York Times, May 4, 1935.

£19a. , Phys. Zeitschr. 19 , 115, 165 (1918).

E19b. , PAW, 1918, p. 448.

E20. PAW, 1916, p. 688.

£21. , Verb. Deutsch. Phys. Ges. 18, 318 (1916); Mitt. Phys. Ges. Zurich 16, 47

(1916).

THE NEW DYNAMICS

291

15g. What Else Was New at GR9?

*For example, it so happens that in the approximation defined by Eqs. 15.11-15.14, sources move
with constant velocity (!) [E57].

**Mme Y. Choquet-Bruhat told me that Einstein did not show much interest in this problem when
she once discussed it with him.

294

RELATIVITY, THE GENERAL THEORY

E60. and , Ann Math. 41, 455 (1940).

E61. J. Ehlers, Ann N.Y. Ac. Sci. 336, 279 (1980).

FI. A. Friedmann, Z. Phys. 10, 377 (1922).

G1 . H. F. Goenner, in Grundlagenproblemen der modemen Physik, BI Verlag, Mann-
heim, 1981.

HI. S. W. Hawking and W. Israel (Eds.), General Relativity, an Einstein Century
Survey. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1979.

H2. A. Held (Ed.), General Relativity and Gravitation. Plenum Press, New York,
1980.

H3. E. P. Hubble, Astrophys. J. 62, 409 (1925); 63, 236 (1926); 64, 321 (1926).

H3a. , Proc. Nat. Ac. Sci. 15, 169 (1929).

H4. D. Hilbert, Goett. Nachr., 1915, p. 395.

H5. , Goett. Nachr., 1917, p. 53.

H6. ,[H5],p. 63.

H7. A. E. Harward, Phil. Mag. 44, 380 (1922).

H8. S. W. Hawking and W. Israel, [HI], p. 90.

H9. F. Herneck, Einstein und Sein Weltbild, p. 109. Verlag der Morgen, Berlin,
1976.

HIO. G. Holton, Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought, p. 219. Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1973.

Hll. H. Honl, Einstein Symposium 1965, Ak. Verl. Berlin, 1966, p. 238.

HI 2. P. Havas in Isolated Systems in General Relativity (J. Ehlers, Ed.), p. 74. North
Holland, Amsterdam, 1979.

Jl. G. B. Jeffery, Phil. Mag. 43, 600 (1922).

Kl. M. D. Kruskal, Phys. Rev. 119, 1743 (1960).

K2. F. Klein, Goett. Nachr., 1918, p. 71. Reprinted in Felix Klein, Gesammelte
Mathematische Abhandlungen (R. Fricke and A. Ostrowski, Eds.), Vol. 1, p. 568
Springer, Berlin, 1921.

K3. , 1K2], Sec. 8, especially footnote 14.

K4. , Goett. Nachr., 1917, p. 469. Reprinted in Fricke and Ostrowski, [K21, Vol.

1, p. 553.

LI. T. Levi-Civita, Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo 42, 173 (1917).

L2. M. Lecat, Bibliographic de la Relativite. Lamertin, Brussels, 1924.

L2a. L. D. Landau, Nature 141, 333 (1938).

L3. H. A. Lorentz, letters to P. Ehrenfest, January 10 and 11, 1916

L4. , letter to P. Ehrenfest, January 22, 1916.

L5. L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, The Classical Theory of Fields, (3rd edn.), p.
304. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1971.

L6. H. A. Lorentz, Proc, K. Ak. Amsterdam 8, 603 (1900); Collected Works, Vol. 5,
p. 198. Nyhoff, the Hague, 1937.

Ml. M. K. Munitz, Theories of the Universe, The Free Press, Glencoe, III., 1957.

M2. C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, and J. A. Wheeler, Gravitation. Freeman, San
Francisco, 1973.

M3. J. Mchra, The Solvay Conferences on Physics, Chap. 15. Reidel, Boston, 1975.

M4. R. W. Mandl, letter to A. Einstein, May 3, 1936.

M5. , letter to A. Einstein, December 18, 1936.

M6. E. Mach, Die Mechanik in Ihrer Entwicklung, Historisch-Kritisch Dargestellt.

THE NEW DYNAMICS

295

Brockhaus, Leipzig, 1883. Translated as The Science oj Mechanics (4th edn.).
Open Court, Chicago, 1919.

M7. , [M6], English translation, pp. 542, 543.

M8. , Phys. Zeitschr. 11, 599 (1910).

M9. , The Principles of Physical Optics, preface. Methuen, London, 1926.

MIO. , [M6], Chap. 2, Sec. 6, Subsec. 7.

Mil. , History and Root of the Principle of the Conservation of Energy (2nd edn.;

P. Jourdain, Tran.), pp. 78, 79. Open Court, Chicago, 1911.

M12. C. W. Misner et al., [M2], pp. 752-62.

M13. ,[M2], p. 1095.

Nl. J. D. North, The Measure of the Universe. Oxford University Press, Oxford
1965.

N2. ,[Nl],Chap. 7.

N3. Nature 106, issue of February 17, 1921.

N4. J. D. North, [Nl], Chaps. 8 and 9.

N5. E. Noether, Goett. Nachr., 1918, pp. 37, 235.

N6. J. D North, [Nl], Chap. 2.

01 . J. R. Oppenheimer and R. Serber, Phys. Rev. 54, 540 (1938).

02. and G. M. Volkoff, Phys. Rev. 55, 374 (1939).

03. and H. Snyder, Phys. Rev. 56, 455 (1939).

PI. W. Pauli, ‘Relativitatstheorie,’ Encyklopddie der Mathematischen Wissenschaf-
ten. Teubner, Leipzig, 1921.

, Theory of Relativity (G. Field, Tran.). Pergamon Press, London, 1958.

P3. , [PI] or [P2], Sec. 54.

P4. , [PI] or [P2], Secs 23 and 57.

P5. , [PI] or [P2], Sec. 61.

P6. H. Poincare, C R. Ac. Sci. Pans 140, 1504 (1905), Oeuvres de H. Poincare, Vol.

9, p. 489. Gauthier- Villars, Paris, 1954.

P7. W. Pauli, [PI] or [P2], Sec. 62.

Rl. H. P. Robertson, Rev. Mod. Phys. 5, 62 (1933).

R2. A. Rosenblum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 41, 1003 (1978).

51. L. S. Shepley and A. A. Strassenberg, Cosmology. AAPT, Stony Brook N Y
1979.

52. L. L. Smarr (Ed.), Sources of Gravitational Radiation. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, 1979.

53. G. Shaviv and J. Rosen (Eds.), Relativity and Gravitation. Wiley, New York
1975.

54. G. Szekeres, Pub. Mat. Debrecen. 7, 285 (1960).

55. D. W. Sciama letter to A. Pais, October 16, 1979.

56. I. I. Shapiro, [W3], p. 115.

S6a. N. Sanitt, Nature 234, 199 (1971).

57. A. Sommerfeld (Ed.), The Principle of Relativity. Dover, New York.

58. J. Schouten, Ricci-Calculus (2nd edn.), p. 146. Springer, Berlin, 1954.

59. and D. J. Struik, Phil. Mag. 47, 584 (1924).

SIO. R. Schoen and S. T. Yau, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 1457 (1979).

SI 1. Se, p. 98.

SI 2. W. de Sitter, Proc. K. Ak. Amsterdam 19, 527 (1917), footnote on pp. 531, 532.

296

RELATIVITY, THE GENERAL THEORY

513. D. Sciama, (W3], p. 387.

514. W. de Sitter, Proc. K, Ak. Amsterdam 19, 1217 (1917); 20, 229 (1917).

Tl. R. C. Tolman, Phys. Rev. 55, 364 (1939).

T2. A. Trautman in Gravitation (L. Witten, Ed.), p. 169. Wiley, New York, 1962.
T3. K. Thorne, Rev. Mod. Phys. 52, 285 (1980).

T4. , Rev. Mod. Phys. 52, 299 (1980).

T5. , Rev. Mod. Phys. 52, 290 (1980).

T6. H. Thirring and J. Lense Phys. Z. 19, 156 (1918).

Wl. H. Weyl, Space, Time and Matter (H. L. Brose, Tran.). Dover, New York, 1951.
W2. S. Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology. Wiley, New York, 1972.

W3. H. Woolf (Ed.), Some Strangeness in the Proportion. Addison-Weslcy, Reading,
Mass., 1980.

W4. S. Weinberg, [W21, Chap. 14, Sec. 5.

W5. J. A. Wheeler, Am. Scholar 37, 248 (1968); Am. Scientist 56, I (1968).

W6. S. Weinberg, [W21. p. 297.

W7. D. T. Wilkinson, [W3], p. 137.

W8. C. M. Will, (HI), Chap. 2.

W8a. D. Walsh, R. F. Carswell, and R. J. Weymann, Nature 279, 381 (1979).

W9. H. Weyl, Scripta Math. 3, 201 (1935).

WIO. , AdPSi, 117 (1917).

Wll. S. Weinberg, [W2], Chap. 12, Secs. 3 and 4.

W12. ,[W2],Chap. 9, Sec. 8.

W13. E. Witten, Comm. Math. Phys. 80, 381 (1981); see further R. Schoen and S. T.
Yau, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 369, 1981; G. T. Horowitz and M. J. Perry, Phys. Rev.
Lett.^%, 371,1981.

W14. J. Weber, Phys. Rev. 47, 306 (1960); Phys. Rev. Lett. 22, 1302 (1969).

W15. and J. A. Wheeler, Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 509 (1957).

W16. M. Walker and C. M. Will, Phys. Rev. Lett. 22, 1741 (1980).

W17. C. M. Will, [HI], Chap. 2.

W18. S. Weinberg, [W2], pp. 16, 17.

W19. See, e.g., [W2], pp. 613ff.

W20. H. Weyl, letter to A. Einstein, February 3, 1927.

W21. , addendum to a paper by R. Bach, Math. Zeitschr. 13, 134 (1922).

Yl. P. Young, J. E. Gunn, J. Kristian, J. B. Oke, and J. A. Westphal, Astrophys. J.
241, 507 (1980).

THE LATER JOURNEY

‘The Suddenly Famous
Doctor Einstein’

16a. Illness; Remarriage; Death of Mother

Part IV of this book began with an account of Einstein’s arrival in Berlin, his
separation from Mileva, his reactions to the First World War, and his earliest
activities in the political sphere. This was followed by a description of the final
phases in the creation of general relativity. In the previous chapter, Einstein’s role
in the further development of this theory and its impact on later generations of
physicists were discussed. In this chapter, I turn to the impact of general relativity
on the world at large, an impact that led to the abrupt emergence of Einstein as
a charismatic figure and a focus of awe, reverence, and hatred. I also continue the
story, begun in Section 14a, of Einstein’s years in Berlin. To begin with, I return
to the days just after November 1915, when Einstein completed his work on the
foundations of general relativity.

As was mentioned before, in December 1915 Einstein wrote to his friend Besso
that he was ‘zufrieden aber ziemlich kaputt,’ satisfied but rather worn out [El].
He did not take a rest, however. In 1916 he wrote ten scientific papers, including
his first major survey of general relativity, his theory of spontaneous and induced
emission, his first paper on gravitational waves, articles on the energy -momentum
conservation laws and on the Schwarzschild solution, and a new proposal for mea-
suring the Einstein -de Haas effect. He also completed his first semipopular book
on relativity. Too much exertion combined with a lack of proper care must have
been the chief cause of a period of illness that began sometime in 1917 and lasted
several years.

I do not know precisely when this period began, but in February 1917 Einstein
wrote to Ehrenfest that he would not be able to visit Holland because of a liver
ailment that had forced him to observe a severe diet and to lead a very quiet life
[E2]. That quiet life did not prevent him from writing the founding paper on
general relativistic cosmology in that same month. Lorentz expressed regret that
Einstein could not come; however, he wrote, ‘After the strenuous work of recent
years, you deserve a rest’ [Llj. Einstein’s reply shows that his indisposition was
not a trivial matter. He mentioned that he could get proper nourishment because
of the connections that his family in Berlin maintained with relatives in southern

300

THE LATER JOURNEY

Germany and added, 'Without this help it would hardly be possible for me to stay
here; nor do I know if things can continue the way they are’ [E3]. As a Swiss
citizen, he was entitled to and did receive food parcels from Switzerland [E4], but
that was evidently not enough to compensate for the food shortages in Berlin
caused by the war. He did not follow the advice of his doctor, who had urged him
to recuperate in Switzerland [E5].

At that stage Elsa Einstein Lowenthal took matters in hand. Elsa, born in 1876
in Hechingen in Hohenzollern, was both a first and a second cousin of Albert’s.
Rudolf, her father, was a first cousin of Hermann, Albert’s father. Fanny, her
mother, was a sister of Pauline, Albert’s mother. Elsa and Albert had known each
other since childhood, when Elsa would visit the relatives in Munich and Albert
would come to Hechingen. They had grown fond of each other. In her early twen-
ties, Elsa married a merchant named Lowenthal, by whom she had two daughters,
Use (b. 1897) and Margot (b. 1899). This brief marriage ended in divorce. When
Einstein arrived in Berlin, Elsa and her daughters were living in an upper-floor
apartment on Haberlandstrasse No. 5. Her parents lived on lower floors in the
same building. Elsa’s presence in Berlin had been one of the factors drawing Ein-
stein to that city.

It was principally Elsa who took care of her cousin during his illness. In the
summer of 1917, Einstein moved from the Wittelsbacherstrasse to an apartment
next to Elsa’s. In September he invited Besso to visit him in his spacious and
comfortable new quarters [E6]. In December, he wrote to Zangger that he felt
much better. ‘I have gained four pounds since last summer, thanks to Elsa’s good
care. She herself cooks everything for me, since this has turned out to be necessary’
[E7]. However, he still had to maintain a strict diet and was never sure that severe
pains might not return [E81.

Toward the end of the year, his health worsened. It turned out that he was
suffering from a stomach ulcer [E9, ElO]. For the next several months, he had to
stay in bed [ElO]. His feelings were at a low ebb: 'The spirit turns lame, the
strength diminishes’ [Ell]. While bedridden, he derived the quadrupole formula
for gravitational radiation. In April 1918 he was permitted to go out, but still had
to be careful. ‘Recently I had a nasty attack, which was obviously caused only
because I played the violin for an hour’ [ElO]. In May he was in bed again, this
time with jaundice [El 2], but completed a fundamental paper on the pseudotensor
of energy -momentum. His dream (in August [El 3]) that he had cut his throat
with a shaving knife may or may not have been a reaction to his state of health.
In November he published an article on the twin paradox. In December he wrote
to Ehrenfest that he would never quite regain his full health [El 4].

By that time, Albert and Elsa had decided to get married, and therefore Einstein
had to institute procedures to obtain a divorce from Mileva [El 5]. The divorce
decree was issued on February 14, 1919. It stipulated that Mileva would receive,
in due course, Einstein’s Nobel prize money.*

•See further Chapter 30.

‘the suddenly famous doctor EINSTEIN’

301

Mileva remained in Zurich for the rest of her life. Initially she took on her own
family name, Marity, but by decree of the cantonal government of Zurich dated
December 24, 1924, she was given permission to revert to the name Einstein. On
occasional visits to his children, Einstein would stay in her home. She was a dif-
ficult woman, distrustful of other people and given to spells of melancholy. (Her
sister Zorka suffered from severe mental illness.) She died in 1948. Some years
thereafter Einstein wrote of her, ‘She never reconciled herself to the separation
and the divorce, and a disposition developed reminiscent of the classical example
of Medea. This darkened the relations to my two boys, to whom I was attached
with tenderness. This tragic aspect of my life continued undiminished until my
advanced age’ [El 6].

Albert and Elsa were married on June 2, 1919. He was forty, she forty-three.
They made their home in Elsa’s apartment, to which were added two rooms on
the floor above, which served as Einstein’s quarters for study and repose. On
occasion, his stomach pain would still flare up [El 7], but in 1920 he wrote to
Besso that he was in good health and good spirits [El 8]. Perhaps the most remark-
able characteristic of this period of illness is the absence of any lull in Einstein’s
scientific activity.

Elsa, gentle, warm, motherly, and prototypically bourgeoise, loved to take care
of her Albertle. She gloried in his fame. Charlie Chaplin, who first met her in
1931, described her as follows: 'She was a square-framed woman with abundant
vitality; she frankly enjoyed being the wife of the great man and made no attempt
to hide the fact; her enthusiasm was endearing’ [Cl]. The affectionate relationship
between her husband and her daughters added to her happiness. Albert, the gypsy,
had found a home, and in some ways that did him much good. He very much
liked being taken care of and also thoroughly enjoyed receiving people at his apart-
ment — scientists, artists, diplomats, other personal friends. In other ways, how-
ever, this life was too much for him. A friend and visitor gave this picture: ‘He,
who had always had something of the bohemian in him, began to lead a middle-
class life ... in a household such as was typical of a well-to-do Berlin family . . .

in the midst of beautiful furniture, carpets, and pictures When one entered

. . . one found Einstein still remained a “foreigner” in such a surrounding— a
bohemian guest in a middle-class home’ [Flj. Elsa gave a glimpse of their life to
another visitor: ‘As a little girl, I fell in love with Albert because he played Mozart
so beautifully on the violin. . . . He also plays the piano. Music helps him when
he is thinking about his theories. He goes to his study, comes back, strikes a few
chords on the piano, jots something down, returns to his study. On such days,
Margot and I make ourselves scarce. Unseen, we put out something for him to
eat and lay out his coat. [Sometimes] he goes out without coat and hat, even when
the weather is bad. Then he comes back and stands there on the stairs’ [SI]. One
does not have a sense of much intimacy between the two. The bedroom next to
Elsa’s was occupied by her daughters; Albert’s was down the hall [HI]. Nor do
they appear to have been a couple much given to joint planning and deliberation.
‘Albert’s will is unfathomable,’ Elsa once wrote to Ehrenfest [El 9]. In marked

302

THE LATER JOURNEY

contrast to her husband, she was conscious of social standing and others’ opin-
ions.*

On various occasions, Einstein would utter asides which expressed his reser-
vations on the bliss attendant on the holy state of matrimony. For example, he
was once asked by someone who observed him incessantly cleaning his pipe
whether he smoked for the pleasure of smoking or in order to engage in unclogging
and refilling his pipe. He replied, ‘My aim lies in smoking, but as a result things
tend to get clogged up, I’m afraid. Life, too, is like smoking, especially marriage’
[II].

Shortly after Elsa died, in 1936, Einstein wrote to Born, ‘I have acclimated
extremely well here, live like a bear in its cave, and feel more at home than I ever
did in my eventful life. This bearlike quality has increased because of the death
of my comrade [Kameradin], who was more attached to people [than I]’ [E20).
It was not the only time that Einstein wrote about his family with more frankness
than grace [E21].

In March 1955, shortly after the death of his lifelong friend Michele Besso,
Einstein wrote to the Besso family, ‘What I most admired in him as a human
being is the fact that he managed to live for many years not only in peace but also
in lasting harmony with a woman — an undertaking in which I twice failed rather
disgracefully’ [E22].

Half a year after Albert and Elsa were married, his mother came to Berlin to
die in her son’s home.

Pauline’s life had not been easy. After her husband’s death in 1902 left her with
limited means and no income, she first went to stay with her sister Fanny, in
Hechingen. Thereafter she lived for a long period in Heilbron in the home of a
widowed banker by the name of Oppenheimer, supervising the running of the
household and the education of several young children who adored her. Later she
managed for a time the household of her widowed brother Jakob Koch, then
moved to Lucerne to stay with her daughter, Maja, and the latter’s husband, Paul
Winteler, at their home at Brambergstrasse 16a. It was to that address that Ein-
stein sent a newspaper clipping ‘for the further nourishment of Mama’s anyhow
already considerable mother’s pride’ [E231.

While staying with her daughter, Pauline became gravely ill with abdominal
cancer and had to be hospitalized at the Sanatorium Rosenau. Shortly thereafter,
she expressed the desire to be with her son. In December 1919, Elsa wrote to
Ehrenfest that the mother, now deathly ill, would be transported to Berlin [E24].
Around the beginning of 1920, Pauline arrived, accompanied by Maja, a doctor,
and a nurse [E25]. She was bedded down in Einstein’s study. Morphine treat-
ments affected her mind, but ‘she clings to life and still looks good’ [E251. She

•Frank remarks that she was not popular in Berlin circles (FI f

‘the suddenly famous doctor EINSTEIN’

303

died in February and was buried in the Schdneberg Cemetery in Berlin. Soon
thereafter, Einstein wrote to Zangger, ‘My mother has died. . . . We are all com-
pletely exhausted. . . . One feels in one’s bones the significance of blood ties’ [E26].

16 b. Einstein Canonized

In the early fall of 1919, when Pauline Einstein was in the sanatorium, she
received a postcard from her son which began, ‘Dear Mother, joyous news today.
H. A. Lorentz telegraphed that the English expeditions have actually demon-
strated the deflection of light from the sun’ [E27]. The telegram that had
announced the news to Einstein a few days earlier read, ‘Eddington found star
displacement at the sun’s edge preliminary between nine-tenth second and double
that. Many greetings. Lorentz’ [L2]. It was an informal communication. Nothing
was definitive. Yet Einstein sent almost at once a very brief note to Naturwissen-
schaften for the sole purpose of reporting the telegram he had received [E28]. He
was excited.

Let us briefly recapitulate Einstein’s progress in understanding the bending of
light. 1907. The clerk at the patent office in Bern discovers the equivalence prin-
ciple, realizes that this principle by itself implies some bending of light, but
believes that the effect is too small to ever be observed. 1911. The professor at
Prague finds that the effect can be detected for starlight grazing the sun during
a total eclipse and finds that the amount of bending in that case is 0''87. He does
not yet know that space is curved and that, therefore, his answer is incorrect. He
is still too close to Newton, who believed that space is flat and who could have
himself computed the 0"87 (now called the Newton value) from his law of grav-
itation and his corpuscular theory of light. 1912. The professor at Zurich discovers
that space is curved. Several years pass before he understands that the curvature
of space modifies the bending of light. 1915. The member of the Prussian Acad-
emy discovers that general relativity implies a bending of light by the sun equal
to 1''74, the Einstein value, twice the Newton value. This factor of 2 sets the stage
for a confrontation between Newton and Einstein.

In 1914, before Einstein had the right answer, he had written to Besso with
typical confidence. ‘I do not doubt any more the correctness of the whole system,
whether the observation of the solar eclipse succeeds or not’ [E29]. Several quirks
of history saved him from the embarrassment of banking on the wrong result. An
Argentinian eclipse expedition which had gone to Brazil in 1912 and which had
the deflection of light on its experimental program was rained out. In the summer
of 1914, a German expedition led by Erwin Freundlich and financed by Gustav
Krupp, in a less familiar role of benefactor of humanity, headed for the Crimea
to observe the eclipse of August 21. (Russian soldiers and peasants were told by
their government not to fear evil omens: the forthcoming eclipse was a natural
phenomenon [Nl].) When the war broke out, the party was warned in time to
return and some did so. Those who hesitated were arrested, eventually returned

304

THE LATER JOURNEY

home safely but of course without results [N2]. Frustration continued also after
November 18, 1915, the day on which Einstein announced the right bending of
1T74 [E30]. Ten days later, commenting on a new idea by Freundlich for mea-
suring light bending, Einstein wrote to Sommerfeld, ‘Only the intrigues of mis-
erable people prevent the execution of this last, new, important test of the theory,’
and, most uncharacteristically, signed his letter ‘Your infuriated Einstein,’ [E31].
An opportunity to observe an eclipse in Venezuela in 1916 had to be passed up
because of the war. Early attempts to seek deflection in photographs taken during
past eclipses led nowhere. An American efifort to measure the effect during the
eclipse of June 1918 never gave conclusive results.* It was not until May 1919
that two British expeditions obtained the first useful photographs and not until
November 1919 that their results were formally announced.

English interest in the bending of light developed soon after copies of Einstein’s
general relativity papers were sent from Holland by de Sitter to Arthur Stanley
Eddington at Cambridge (presumably these were the first papers on the theory to
reach England). In addition, de Sitter’s beautiful essay on the subject, published
in June 1916 in the Observatory [S2], as well as his three important papers in the
Monthly Notices [S3] further helped to spread the word. So did a subsequent
report by Exldington [E33], who in a communication to the Royal Astronomical
Society in February 1917 stressed the importance of the deflection of light [E34]
In March 1917 the Astronomer Royal, Sir Frank Watson Dyson, drew attention
to the excellence of the star configuration on May 29, 1919, (another eclipse date)
for measuring the alleged deflection, adding that ‘Mr Hinks has kindly under-
taken to obtain for the Society information of the stations which may be occupied’
[Dlj. Two expeditions were mounted, one to Sobral in Brazil, led by Andrew
Crommelin from the Greenwich Observatory, and one to Principe Island off the
coast of Spanish Guinea, led by Eddington. Before departing, Eddington wrote,
‘The present eclipse expeditions may for the first time demonstrate the weight of
light [i.e., the Newton value); or they may confirm Einstein’s weird theory of non-
Euclidean space; or they may lead to a result of yet more far-reaching conse-
quences — no deflection’ [E35]. Under the heading ‘Stop Press News,’ the June
issue of the Observatory contains the text of two telegrams, one from Sobral:
‘Eclipse splendid. Crommelin,’ and one from Principe: ‘Through cloud. Hopeful.
Eddington’ [01 ]. The expeditions returned. Data analysis began.** According to
a preliminary report by Eddington to the meeting of the British Association held
in Bournemouth on September 9-13, the bending of light lay between 0^87 and
double that value. Word reached Lorentz.J Lorentz cabled Einstein, whose excite-

*For many details about all these early efforts, see especially [E32].

••I shall not discuss any details of the actual observations or of the initial analysis of the data and
their re-analysis in later years. For these subjects, I refer to several excellent articles [B1 , E32, Ml).

+The news was brought to Leiden by van der Pol, who had attended the Bournemouth meeting (L3).

‘the suddenly famous doctor EINSTEIN’

305

ment on receiving this news after seven years of waiting will now be clearer. Then
came November 6, 1919, the day on which Einstein was canonized. f

Ever since 1905 Einstein had been beatus, having performed two first-class mir-
acles. Now, on November 6, the setting, a joint meeting of the Royal Society and
the Royal Astronomical Society, resembled a Congregation of Rites. Dyson acted
as postulator, ably assisted by Crommelin and Eddington as advocate-procurators.
Dyson, speaking first, concluded his remarks with the statement, ‘After a careful
study of the plates I am prepared to say that they confirm Einstein’s prediction.
A very definite result has been obtained, that light is deflected in accordance with
Einstein’s law of gravitation.’ Crommelin added further details. Eddington spoke
next, stating that the Principe results supported the figures obtained at Sobral,
then reciting the two requisite authentic miracles subsequent to Einstein’s eleva-
tion to beatus: the perihelion of Mercury and the bending of light, 1''98 ± 0."30
and 1".61 i 0".30 as observed in Sobral and Principe, respectively. Ludwick
Silberstein,* the advocatus dtaboli, presented the animadver stones: ‘It is unscien-
tific to assert for the moment that the deflection, the reality of which I admit, is
due to gravitation.’ His main objection was the absence of evidence for the red
shift: ‘If the shift remains unproved as at present, the whole theory collapses.’
Pointing to the portrait of Newton which hung in the meeting hall, Silberstein
admonished the congregation: ‘We owe it to that great man to proceed very care-
fully in modifying or retouching his Law of Gravitation.’

Joseph John Thomson, O.M., P.R.S., in the chair, having been petitioned
mstanter, instantius, instantissime , pronounced the canonization: ‘This is the most
important result obtained in connection with the theory of gravitation since New-
ton’s day, and it is fitting that it should be announced at a meeting of the Society
so closely connected with him. . . . The result [is] one of the highest achievements
of human thought.’ A few weeks later he added, ‘The deflection of light by matter,
suggested by Newton in the first of his Queries, would itself be a result of first-
rate scientific importance; it is of still greater importance when its magnitude sup-
ports the law of gravity put forward by Einstein’ (Tl).

Even before November 6, Einstein and others already knew that things looked
good.

f I find the parallels with the rituals of beatification and canonization compelling, even though they
arc here applied to a living person. Note that a beatus may be honored with public cull by a specified
diocese or institution (here, the physicists). A canonized person is honored by unrestricted public
cull. For these and other terms used, see IN 3).

JThe details of the proceedings quoted here are found in an article in the Observatory [02].

* Silberstein, a native of Poland who moved to England and later settled in the United States, was
the author of three books on relativity. On several occasions, he was in dogged but intelligent oppo-
sition to relativity theory.

3o6

THE LATER JOURNEY

On October 22, Carl Stumpf, a psychologist and fellow member of the Prussian
Academy, wrote to Einstein, ‘I feel compelled to send you most cordial congratu-
lations on the occasion of the grandiose new success of your gravitation theory.
With all our hearts, we share the elation which must fill you and are proud of the
fact that, after the military-political collapse, German science has been able to
score such a victory . . [S4].* On November 3 Einstein replied, ‘On my return
from Holland I find your congratulations. ... I recently learned in Leiden that
the confirmation found by Eddington is also a complete one quantitatively’ [E36).
A few days after the joint meeting of November 6, Lorentz sent another telegram
to Einstein, confirming the news [L4]. On November 7, 1919, the Einstein legend
began.

16c. The Birth of the Legend

‘Armistice and treaty terms/Germans summoned to Paris/Devastated France/
Reconstruction progress/ War crimes against Serbia.’ These are among the head-
lines on page 1 1 of the London Times of November 7, 1919. Turning to page 12,
one finds that column 1 is headed by ‘The glorious dead/King’s call to his people/
Armistice day observance/Two minutes pause from work’ and column 6 by ‘Rev-
olution in science/New theory of the universe/Newtonian ideas overthrown.’
Halfway down the column, there is the laconic subheading ‘Space warped.’ In this
London Times issue, we find the first report to a world worn by war of the hap-
penings at the meetings of the joint societies the day before. The next day, the
same paper published a further article on the same subject headlined ‘The revo-
lution in science/Einstein v. Newton/Views of eminent physicists,’ in which we
read, ‘The subject was a lively topic of conversation in the House of Commons
yesterday, and Sir Joseph Larmor, F.R.S., M.P. for Cambridge University, . . .
said he had been besieged by inquiries as to whether Newton had been cast down
and Cambridge “done in.’” (Hundreds of people were unable to get near the room
when Eddington lectured in Cambridge on the new results [E37].) The news was
picked up immediately by the Dutch press [N3a, Alj. Daily papers invited emi-
nent physicists to comment. In his lucid way, Lorentz explained general relativity
to the readers of the Niewe Rotterdamsche Courant of November 19, remarking
that ‘I cannot refrain from expressing my surprise that according to the report in
the [London] Times there should be so much complaint about the difficulty of
understanding the new theory. It is evident that Einstein’s little book ''About the
Special and General Theory of Relativity in Plain Terms*' did not find its way
into England during wartime.’** On November 23 an article by Max Born enti-

•I thank A. Hermann for informing me that in October the Berlin papers were already carrying
early reports. An article by Alexander Moszkowski entitled ‘Die Sonne bracht’ es an den Tag’ in
the Berliner Tageblait of October 8, 1919, must presumably have been based on information from
Einstein himself.

**This article appeared later in translation in The New York Times |N4].

REVOLUTION IN
8CTENCE.

JEW THEORY OF THE
UNIVERSE.

NEWTONIAN IDEAS
OVERTHROWN.

Yesterday afternoon in the rooms of tlie
nyal Society, at a joint session of the Royal
id A'^tronomical Societies, the results oh-
ined by Britisli observers of the total solar
lipse of May 29 wore discussed.

The jfroutest possible interest had been
oiisod ill scientific cifL-Ios by the hope that
,al theories of a fundamental physical
obloTn would be put to the test, and there was
very large attendance of astronomers and
lysicists. It was generally accepted that the
HoiAntions More derisive in the verifying of

0 prediction of tlu* famous physicist, Einstein,
it Of I by the Ihosident of the Royal Society

being the most remarkable s<*ientilic event
lei- the discoierv of th«' preilictcd existence
the planet Neptune. But there' was differ*
ec of opinion as to \ihethcr science hail to
•e merely a new and unexplained fact, or to
•kou with a thooiy tliot uouJd completoly
u)luti<>m/.e llic Mceeptcil fundamentals of

>sies.

‘<iit hVsoN. (he Astrnnomrr Royal. deteribeif

’ \\<irk «>l 1 ho e\ poilit ions Honi rospootiTeiy lu
hitti in .Niirlh HraEil and iho inland of l^nripe,
ihi- \\ OMt t'oRsf, of \frira. At each of (hf'.o
ec*' if (he weather were propitious on tho day of
e, lip>e. It w(>uld ho pofwihin to t«Le iluriiiK
»lil\ a set of phoiuKraphs of the ohscured Kun and
iiiinilier ol bii^lil siHrs ahieh happened to |,e in
iinnoilialc MiiiMl>. The doriml objerf, was lo
•eriAiii whether the light fnnn (b«*so xtars, as it.
>red (lip Min, caino iis dinslly towardn us as if
- sun Moip not there, or if there was a dedcetion
e (n Mh prejtnnre, and if (he latter proved to be
easp. what (he amount, of the deHeeiion was. If
Heel ion did ornir, (he ^(a^s would appear
(hr photogiaphic plati^s at a raoaButahlo
(lime from (hen theuretieal potiitioD^. He
l*l«ined III detail (he apparatus (ba(. hat bts'ii
i|>l(>\<'d. (he (oiT<*r(ioMs (hat had (o he male Pt

• lous disturbing f.uetors, and the n1ethod^ hv
irh conipflrison between the th«sireti<al and (ho
'erved positions had been made. He ronvinccd the
|'(ing (hat (he results were dellmte and conelusur.
nfstiun did take pla^'e. and (he measurements
»"ed (ha( (he « x(ent of (he deflis lion waa in

’ord with (he (heori'tieal degiss’ predicted hv
"stem. MS «,pt»oMMl (o half that degree, the anmiint
d ^ionld follow from the piineiples of Newton,
•s Interesting (o nsall that Sir (finer Uxlge,
Hking at (he Unvul Inatitiitioii Japt February,

1 also M'liiiiri'd on a predielion. He doubted if
i'*f(ion would he ohseived. but was ronlidcnt that
( did take plare, it wnuUl follow the law of Newtou
I Hot that of Kiiirti'in.

and PiuiK»Mm Fuuisoton, (wo
die aetual obseivers. followed (hi* Astronomor-
>‘iu and gave inteiesting aerounls of their work,
every w’ay continuing thu gciicial couclusiont that

* been cnunciaU*d.

‘ MOME.VJ’OtS PRONOUNCEMENT.”

So far the matter wa-< clear, but when the
iliseiission began, it w»w plain that tho acientttio
interest eenlrcil more in the theoretical bearings
<»f the results than in tho results themselves.
Even the President of tho Royal Society, in
stating that they had jUst listened to ‘‘one of
the most iiiomenloiis, if not tho most moment-
ous, pronouncements of human thought,” had
to confess (hat no one had yet succeeded in
stating in clear language what the theory of
Einstein really was. it. was acciepted, how
ever, that Eiustein. on tho basLS of his theory,
had niadi' three predictions. The first, as to the
motion of the planet Men-iiry, had been verified.
'I be sisoiid, as to (lie ex stenee and the degieo
of defleftion of light as it passed the sphere of
mflueiieo of (lio sun. had now been verified.
As to the third, wdiich depended on speetro-
spopic observations there waa still uncertainty.
Rut he was confident that the Einstein theory
must now be reckoned with, and that our con-
ceptions of the fabric of tho umverso must be
fundamentally altered

At this stage Sir Ohv’cr Lodge, whose con-
tribution to the (lu-eiission bad been eagerly
e.xpeeted, left the meet mg.

Subseipient .speakers joined in congratulating
tho oKservors, and agn^ed m accepting their
results. More tlian one. however, meludmg
Professor New all, of (’ainbndge, hesitated as
to tlu* full extent of the inferences that had been
dinwn un<l suggested that tla* phenomena
might b(‘ <lui‘ to an unknown .solar atmosphero
further in its extent than laid been siippo.sed
and with unknown profierties. No .spi*akep
sueeeedtMl m giving a clear uon-mutlieinatical
statement of the theoietieal quc.stion.

SP.Vf’K ‘ WARPED.”

Put in (lie most general viay it. mav l>o
dcMTibetl ns follows ; tlic Newtonian principles
aasume that space is invariable, that, for
instance, the thn-e angles of a triangle abvav.s
equal, and must equal, two right angles. But
thest' piUH'ipIcs really rest on the observa-
tion that llu' HtiKh's 1)1 a triangle do equal two
riirhl angles. hikI that a cirrle is really rircular.
Rut tliere are ei rtain physical facts that seem
to throw doubt on tho vinivcrsalitv
of the-.e observations, and suggest that spaeo
may acquire a twist or warp in certain eirmini-
.stanees, as. for instance, under the influence of
gravitation, a dislocation in itself slight and
a|>plying to the instruments of measurement
as well ns to the things meivsured. The Km-
.stem doctrine is that tho qualities of space,
hitherto believed ahsolut^^, arc relative to their
I'lri'umstnncei*. Ho drew tho inferen(N^ from
lus theory that in certain caaes actual moivsimi-
inent of light would show tho effects of tho
warping in a degree that could be predicted
and calculated. His prodirtiona in two of three
CHSO.S have now been verified, but the question
i-emaina oi^en as to whether the veriticAtioiis
prove tho theory from which tho predictions
wore deduced.

3o8

THE LATER JOURNEY

tied ‘Raum, Zeit und Schwerkraft’ appeared in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zei-
tung. A column by Freundlich in Die Vossische Zeitung (Berlin) of November 30
begins as follows: ‘In Germany a scientific event of extraordinary significance has
not yet found the reaction which its importance deserves.’ However, the weekly
Berliner Illustrierte Zeitung of December 14 carried a picture of Einstein on its
cover with the caption ‘A new great in world history: Albert Einstein, whose
researches, signifying a complete revolution in our concepts of nature, are on a
par with the insights of a Copernicus, a Kepler, and a Newton.’ As far as I know,
the first news in the Swiss papers is found in the Neue Ziiricher Zeitung of
December 10, where it is reported that the astronomer Henri Deslandres gave an
account of the May 29 observations before the December 8 session of the French
Academy of Sciences in which he summarized Einstein’s theory by saying that
energy attracts energy.

Einstein himself accepted ‘with joy and gratefulness’ the invitation to write a
guest article in the London Times of November 28, for this gave him an oppor-
tunity for communication ‘after the lamentable breach in the former international

relations existing among men of science It was in accordance with the high

and proud tradition of English science that English scientific men should have
given their time and labour ... to test a theory that had been completed and pub-
lished in the country of their enemies in the midst of war.’ Referring to an earlier
description of him in the London Times, he concluded his article as follows: ‘By
an application of the theory of relativity to the tastes of readers, today in Germany
I am called a German man of science and in England I am represented as a Swiss
Jew. If I come to be regarded as a bete noire, the descriptions will be reversed and
I shall become a Swiss Jew for the Germans and a German man of science for
the English!’ The same Times issue carried an editorial reply, ‘Dr Einstein pays
a well-intended if somewhat superfluous compliment to the impartiality of
English science,’ to Einstein’s first remark, followed by the comments, ‘We con-
cede him his little jest. But we note that, in accordance with the general tenor of
his theory. Dr Einstein docs not supply any absolute description of himself’ in
reply to his second remark. The best description I know of Einstein in 1919 is the
photograph on the cover of the Berliner Illustrirte, a picture of an intelligent,
sensitive, and sensuous man who is deeply weary — from the strains of intense
thinking during the past years, from illnesses from which he has barely recovered,
from the pain of watching his dying mother, and, I would think, from the com-
motion of which he was the center (See Plate II).

November 1919 was not the first time Einstein and relativity appeared in the
news. Frank recalls having seen in 1912 a Viennese newspaper with the headlines
‘The minute in danger, a sensation of mathematical science’ (F2], obviously a
reference to the time dilation of special relativity. In 1914 Einstein himself had
written a newspaper article on relativity for Die Vossische Zeitung [E38]. Thus
he was already somewhat of a public celebrity, but only locally in German-speak-
ing countries. It was only in November 1919 that he became a world figure. For

‘the suddenly famous doctor EINSTEIN’

309

example, The New York Times Index contains no mention of him until November
9, 1919. From that day until his death, not one single year passed without his
name appearing in that paper, often in relation to science, more often in relation
to other issues. Thus the birth of the Einstein legend can be pinpointed at Novem-
ber 7, 1919, when the London Times broke the news.

The article in The New York Times (hereafter called the Times) of November
9 was a sensible report which contained only one embellishment. J. J. Thomson
was alleged to have said, ‘This is one of the gvtdXtsi— perhaps the greatest— o[
achievements in the history of human thought’ The words I italicized were not
spoken by Thomson, but they sell better (and may even be true). The Times of
November 9 contains a lead article on ‘World outbreak plotted by Reds for
November 7/Lenin’s emissaries sought to start rising all over Europe’ and a col-
umn on Einstein under the sixfold headline ‘Lights all askew in the heavens/Men
of science more or less agog over results of eclipse observation/Einstein theory
triumphs/Stars not where they seem or were calculated to be, but nobody need
worry/ A book for 12 wise men/No more in all the world could comprehend it,
said Einstein when his daring publishers accepted it.’ The article reported that
‘one of the speakers at the Royal Society’s meeting suggested that Euclid was
knocked out’ (not so, but, again, it sells) and concluded as follows: ‘When he [Ein-
stein] offered his last important work to the publishers, he warned them that there
were not more than twelve f)ersons in the whole world who would understand it,
but the publishers took the risk.’ Perhaps this story was invented by a reporter.
I think it more probable, however, that this often-quoted statement indeed origi-
nated with Einstein himself and was made sometime in 1916, when he published
a pamphlet (with Barth in Leipzig) and a ‘popular’ book on relativity (with
Vieweg in Brai^nschweig). At any rate, when in December 1919 a Times corre-
spondent interviewed him at his home and asked for an account of his work that
would be accessible to more than twelve people, ‘the doctor laughed good-
naturedly but still insisted on the difficulty of making himself understood by lay-
men’ [N5].

Editorials in the Times now begin to stress that quality of distance between the
common man and the hero which is indispensable for the creation and perpetua-
tion of his mythical role. November 1 1 : ‘This is news distinctly shocking and
apprehensions for the safety of confidence even in the multiplication table will
arise. ... It would take the presidents of two Royal Societies to give plausibility
or even thinkability to the declaration that as light has weight space has limits. It
just doesn’t, by definition, and that’s the end of that — for commonfolk, however it
may be for higher mathematicians.’ November 16: ‘These gentlemen may be great
astronomers but they are sad logicians. Critical laymen have already objected that
scientists who proclaim that space comes to an end somewhere are under obliga-
tion to tell us what lies beyond it.’ November 1 8: the Times urges its readers not
to be offended by the fact that only twelve people can understand the theory of
Hhe suddenly famous Dr Einstein.’ November 25: a news column with the head-

310

THE LATER JOURNEY

lines: ‘A new physics based on Einstein/Sir Oliver Lodge says it will prevail, and
mathematicians will have a terrible time.’ November 26: An editorial entitled ‘Bad
times for the learned.’ November 29: A news item headlined ‘Can’t understand
Einstein’ reports that ‘the London Times . . . confesses that it cannot follow the
details. . . .’ December 7: An editorial, ‘Assaulting the absolute,’ states that ‘the
raising of blasphemous voices against time and space threw some [astronomers]
into a state of terror where they seemed to feel, for some days at least, that the
foundations of all human thought had been undermined.’ One cannot fail to notice
that some of these statements were made with tongue in cheek. Yet they convey a
sense of mystery accompanying the replacement of old wisdom by new order.
Transitions such as these can induce fear. When interviewed by the Times on
relativity theory, Charles Poor, professor of celestial mechanics at Columbia Uni-
versity, said, ‘For some years past, the entire world has been in a state of unrest,
mental as well as physical. It may well be that the physical aspects of the unrest,
the war, the strikes, the Bolshevist uprisings, are in reality the visible objects of
some underlying deep mental disturbance, worldwide in character. . . . This same
spirit of unrest has invaded science . . . ’ [N6].

It would be a misunderstanding of the Einstein phenomenon to attribute these
various reactions to a brief and intense shock of the new. The insistence on mys-
tery never waned. One reads in the Times ten years later, ‘It is a rare exposition
of Relativity that does not find it necessary to warn the reader that here and here
and here he had better not try to understand’ [N7].

The worldwide character of the legend is well illustrated by reports to the For-
eign Office from German diplomats stationed in countries visited by Einstein [K1 ].
Oslo, June 1920: ‘[Einstein’s] lectures were uncommonly well received by the
public and the press.’ Copenhagen, June 1920: ‘In recent days, papers of all opin-
ions have emphasized in long articles and interviews the significance of Professor
Einstein, “the most famous physicist of the present.” ’ Paris, April 1922: ‘ . . . a
sensation which the intellectual snobism of the capital did not want to pass up.’
Tokyo, January 1923: ‘When Einstein arrived at the station there were such large
crowds that the police was unable to cope with the perilous crush ... at the chry-
santhemum festival it was neither the empress nor the prince regent nor the
imperial princes who held reception; everything turned around Einstein.’ Madrid,
March 1923: ‘Great enthusiasm everywhere . . . every day the papers devoted col-
umns to his comings and goings ’ Rio de Janeiro, May 1925: ‘ . . . numerous

detailed articles in the Brazilian press ’ Montevideo, June 1925: ‘He was the

talk of the town and a news topic a whole week long. . . .’ On April 25, 1921,
Einstein was received by President Harding on the occasion of his first visit to the
United States. An eyewitness described the mood of the public when Einstein gave
a lecture in a large concert hall in Vienna that same year. People were ‘in a
curious state of excitement in which it no longer matters what one understands
but only that one is in the immediate neighborhood of a place where miracles
happen’ [F3].

‘the suddenly famous doctor EINSTEIN’ 31I

So it was, and so it remained everywhere and at all times during Einstein’s life.
The quality of his science had long since sufficed to command the admiration of
his peers. Now his name also became a byword to the general public because of
the pictures, verbal and visual, created by that new power of the twentieth century,
the media. Some of these images were cheap, some brilliant (as in the blending of
kings and apostles into twelve wise men). Einstein’s science and the salesmanship
of the press were necessary but not sufficient conditions for the creation of the
legend, however. Compare, for example, the case of Einstein with the one and
only earlier instance in which a major discovery in physics had created a world-
wide sensation under the influence of newspapers. That was the case of Roentgen
and the X-rays he discovered in 1895. It was the discovery, not the man, that was
at the center of attention. Its value was lasting and it has never been forgotten by
the general public, but its newsworthiness went from a peak into a gentle steady
decline.

The essence of Einstein’s unique position goes deeper and has everything to do,
it seems to me, with the stars and with language. A new man appears abruptly,
the ‘suddenly famous Doctor Einstein.’ He carries the message of a new order in
the universe. He is a new Moses come down from the mountain to bring the law
and a new Joshua controlling the motion of heavenly bodies. He speaks in strange
tongues but wise men aver that the stars testify to his veracity. Through the ages,
child and adult alike had looked with wonder at stars and light. Speak of such
new things as X-rays or atoms and man may be awed. But stars had forever been
in his dreams and his myths. Their recurrence manifested an order beyond human
control. Irregularities in the skies — comets, eclipses — were omens, mainly of evil.
Behold, a new man appears. His mathematical language is sacred yet amenable
to transcription into the profane: the fourth dimension, stars are not where they
seemed to be but nobody need worry, light has weight, space is warped. He fulfills
two profound needs in man, the need to know and the need not to know but to
believe. The drama of his emergence is enhanced (though this to me seems sec-
ondary) by the coincidence — itself caused largely by the vagaries of war — between
the meeting of the joint societies and the first annual remembrance of horrid events
of the recent past which had caused millions to die, empires to fall, the future to
be uncertain. The new man who appears at that time represents order and power.
He becomes the ddos oiinfp, the divine man, of the twentieth century.

In the late years, when I knew him, fame and publicity were a source of amuse-
ment and sometimes of irritation to Einstein, whose tribe revered no saints. Pho-
tographs and film clips indicate that in his younger years he had the ability to
enjoy his encounters with the press and the admiration of the people. As I try to
find the best way to characterize Einstein’s deeper response to adulation, I am
reminded of words spoken by Lord Haldane when he introduced Einstein to an
audience at King’s College in London on June 13, 1921. On that first visit to

312

THE LATER JOURNEY

England Einstein stayed in the home of Haldane, whose daughter fainted from
excitement the first time the distinguished visitor entered the house. In his intro-
duction, Haldane mentioned that he had been ‘touched to observe that Einstein
had left his house [that morning] to gaze on the tomb of Newton at Westminster
Abbey.’ Then he went on to describe Einstein in these words:

A man distinguished by his desire, if possible, to efface himself and yet impelled
by the unmistakable power of genius which would not allow the individual of
whom it had taken possession to rest for one moment. [L5]

16d. Einstein and Germany

In April 1914, Einstein set out from Zurich to settle in the capital of the German
Empire, a country still at peace. In December 1932, he left Germany for good. In
the interim, he lived through a world war. The Empire disintegrated. His own
worldwide renown began in 1919, the time of the uncertain rise of the Weimar
republic. At the time he left Germany, the republic, too, was doomed.

Fame attracts envy and hatred. Einstein’s was no exception. In this instance,
these hostile responses were particularly intensified because of his exposed position
in a turbulent environment. During the 1920s, he was a highly visible personality,
not for one but for a multitude of reasons. He was the divine man. He was a
scientific administrator and an important spokesman for the German establish-
ment. He traveled extensively — through Europe, to Japan, to Palestine, through
the Americas. And he was a figure who spoke out on nonestablishment issues,
such as pacifism and the fate of the Jews.

In the first instance, Einstein’s role within the establishment was dictated by
his obligations, many of them administrative, to science. He fulfilled all these
duties conscientiously, some of them with pleasure. As a member of the renowned
Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften, he published frequently in its Pro-
ceedings, faithfully attended the meetings of its physics section as well as the plen-
ary sessions, often served on its committees, and refereed dubious communications
submitted to its Proceedings [K2]. On May 5, 1916, he succeeded Planck as pres-
ident of the Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft. Between then and May 31,
1918, when Sommerfeld took over, he chaired eighteen meetings of this society
and addressed it on numerous occasions. On December 30, 1916, he was
appointed by imperial decree to the Kuratorium of the Physikalisch Technische
Reichsanstalt, a federal institution, and participated in the board’s deliberations
on the choice of experimental programs [K3]. He held this position until he left
Germany. In 1917 he began his duties as director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institut
fur Physik, largely an administrative position, the initial task of the institute being
to administer grants for physics research at various universities.* (It became a

*ln the early years, only the astronomer Freundlich held an appointment as scientific staff member
of the institute. Freundlich caused Einstein and others a certain amount of trouble (K4].

‘THE SUDDENLY FAMOUS DOCTOR EINSTEIN’

313

research institute only after Einstein left Germany.) In 1922 the Akademie
appointed him to the board of directors of the astrophysical laboratory in Potsdam
[K4]. In that year he was also nominated president of the Einstein Stiftung, a
foundation for the promotion of work on experimental tests of general relativity.
This Stiftung was eventually housed in a somewhat bizarre-looking new building,
the Einstein Turm, situated on the grounds of the astrophysical laboratory in
Potsdam. Its main piece of equipment, the Einstein Teleskop, was designed espe-
cially for solar physics experiments. Einstein had no formal duties at the Univer-
sity of Berlin. Nevertheless, he would occasionally teach and conduct seminars.
He also felt a moral obligation to Zurich, an obligation he fulfilled by giving a
series of lectures at its university from January to June 1919.

Einstein held one additional professorial position, this one in Holland. By royal
decree of June 24, 1920, a special chair in Leiden was created for him, enabling
him to come to that university for short periods of his choosing. On October 27,
1920, Einstein began his new position with an inaugural address on aether and
relativity theory.* He came back to Leiden in November 1921, May 1922, Octo-
ber 1924, February 1925, and April 1930, and lectured on several of these occa-
sions. He was comfortable there, walking around in his socks and sweater [Ul).
The initial term of appointment was for three years, but kept being extended until
it was formally terminated on September 23, 1952 [B21.

Einstein’s physics of the 1920s was not only an exercise in administration and
the holding of professorships, however. It was also play. With Miihsam he mea-
sured the diameter of capillaries; with Goldschmidt he invented a hearing aid; and
with Szilard several refrigerating devices.** (for more on these topics, see Chapter
29). But above everything else his prime interest remained with the questions of
principle in physics. I shall return to this subject in the next section. First some
remarks on Einstein’s other activities during the Berlin period.

In the early days of the First World War, Einstein had for the first time pub-
licly advocated the cause of pacifism. He continued to do so from then on. Reaction
to this stand was hostile. During the war, the chief of staff of the military district
Berlin wrote to the president of police of the city of Berlin, pointing out the dan-
gers of permitting pacifists to go abroad. The list of known pacifists appended to
the letter included Einstein’s name [K5). After the war, Einstein the outspoken
supranationalist became a figure detested by the growing number of German
chauvinists.

Einstein regarded his pacifism as an instinctive feeling rather than the result of

*The printed version of this lecture (E39j gives an incorrect date for its delivery. By aether Einstein
meant the gravitational field (one may wonder if this new name was felicitously chosen). ‘The aether
of the general theory of relativity is a medium without mechanical and kinematic properties, but
which codetermines mechanical and electromagnetic events.’

'**Jointly with a Dutch firm, the N.V. Nederlandsche Technische Handelsmaatschappy ‘Giro,’ Ein-
stein also held a patent for a gyrocompass (Deutsches Rcichs Patent 394677) (M2). He did the work
on this device in the mid- 1920s.

314

THE LATER JOURNEY

an intellectual theory [N8]. In the early years, one of his main ideals was the
establishment of a United States of Europe. For that reason, he had become an
active member of the Bund Neues Vaterland (later renamed the German League
for Human Rights), an organization that had advocated European union since its
founding in 1914; in 1928 he joined its board of directors. In 1923 he helped found
the Freunde des Neuen Russland [K6]. Though mainly interested in cultural
exchanges, this group did not fail to interest the police [K7]. In the late 1920s, his
pacifism became more drastic as he began expressing himself in favor of the prin-
ciple of unconditionally refusing to bear arms. Among the numerous manifestos
he signed were several that demanded universal and total disarmament. In a mes-
sage to a meeting of War Resisters’ International in 1931, he expressed the opin-
ion that the people should take the issue of disarmament out of the hands of pol-
iticians and diplomats [N9].

Writing to Hadamard, Einstein remarked that he would not dare to preach his
creed of war resistance to a native African tribe, ‘for the patient would have died
long before the cure could have been of any help to him’ [E40]. It took him rather
a long time to diagnose the seriousness of Europe’s ailments. (In this regard, he
was no rare exception.) It is true that in 1932 he signed an appeal to the Socialist
and Communist parties in Germany, urging them to join forces in order to stave
off Germany’s ‘terrible danger of becoming Fascist’ [K8], but as late as May 1 933,
three months after Hitler came to power, Einstein still held to an unqualified
antimilitarist position. Thereafter he changed his mind, as will be described in
Section 25b.

Einstein’s active interest in the fate of the Jews also began in the Berlin period.
To him this concern was never at variance with his supranational ideals. In
October 1919 he wrote to the physicist Paul Epstein, ‘One can be internationally
minded without lacking concern for the members of the tribe’ [E41 ]. In December
he wrote to Ehrenfest, ‘Anti-Semitism is strong here and political reaction is vio-
lent’ [E42]. He was particularly incensed about the German reaction to Jews who
had recently escaped worse fates in Poland and Russia.* ‘Incitement against these
unfortunate fugitives . . . has become an effective political weapon, employed with
success by every demagogue’ [E42a]. Einstein knew of their plight especially well,
since a number of these refugees literally came knocking at his door for help. To
him supranationalism could wait so far as the hunted Jew was concerned. It was
another case where the patient would have been dead (and often was) before the
cure.

There was another irritant. ‘I have always been annoyed by the undignified
assimilationist cravings and strivings which I have observed in so many of my
[Jewish] friends. . . . These and similar happenings have awakened in me the
Jewish national sentiment’ [E43]. I am sure that Einstein’s strongest source of

*Thcir influx was particularly noticeable in Berlin. In 1900, 1 1 000 out of the 92 000 Berlin Jews
were ‘Ostjuden.’ In 1925 these numbers were 43 000 out of 172 000 [Gl].

‘the suddenly famous doctor EINSTEIN*

315

identity, after science, was to be a Jew, increasingly so as the years went by. That
allegiance carried no religious connotation. In 1924 he did become a dues-paying
member of a Jewish congregation in Berlin, but only as an act of solidarity. Zion-
ism to him was above all else a form of striving for the dignity of the individual.
He never joined the Zionist organization.

There was one person who more than anyone else contributed to Einstein’s
awakening: Kurt Blumenfeld, from 1910 to 1914 secretary general of the Exec-
utive of World Zionist Organizations, which then had its seat in Berlin, and from
1924 to 1933 president of the Union of German Zionists. Ben Gurion called him
the greatest moral revolutionary in the Zionist movement. He belonged to the
seventh generation of emancipated German Jewry. In a beautiful essay, Blumen-
feld has written of his discussions with Einstein in 1919, of his efforts ‘to try to
get out of a man what is hidden in him, and never to try to instill in a man what
is not in his nature’ [B31. It was Blumenfeld whom Einstein often entrusted in
later years with the preparation of statements in his name on Zionist issues. It
was also Blumenfeld who was able to convince Einstein that he ought to join
Weizmann on a visit to the United States (April 2-May 30, 1921) in order to
raise funds for the planned Hebrew University. Blumenfeld understood the man
he was dealing with. After having convinced Einstein, he wrote to Weizmann, ‘As
you know, Einstein is no Zionist, and I beg you not to make any attempt to prevail
on him to join our organization. ... I heard . . . that you expect Einstein to give
speeches. Please be quite careful with that. Einstein . . . often says things out of
naivete which are unwelcome to us’ [B4].’'' As to his relations with Weizmann,
Einstein once said to me, ‘Meine Beziehungen zu dem Weizmann waren, wie der
Freud sagt, ambivalent.’**

The extraordinary complexity of Einstein’s life in the 1920s begins to unfold,
the changes in midlife are becoming clear. Man of research, scientific administra-
tor, guest professor, active pacifist, spokesman for a moral Zionism, fund-raiser
in America. Claimed by the German establishment as one of their most prominent
members, though nominally he is Swiss.f Suspected by the establishment because
of his pacifism. Target for anti-Semitism from the right. Irritant to the German
assimilationist Jews because he would not keep quiet about Jewish self-expres-
sion. It is not very surprising that under these circumstances Einstein occasionally
experienced difficulty in maintaining perspective, as two examples may illustrate.
One of these concerns the 1920 disturbances, the other the League of Nations.

On February 12, 1920, disturbances broke out in the course of a lecture given
by Einstein at the University of Berlin, The official reason given afterward was
that there were too few seats to accommodate everyone. In a statement to the press,
Einstein noted that there was a certain hostility directed against him which was

■‘Part of this letter (dated incorrectly) is reproduced in [B3). The full text is in (BS].

**As F. would say, my relations to W. were ambivalent.

tSee especially the events surrounding the awarding of the Nobel prize to Einstein, Chapter 30.

316

THE LATER JOURNEY

not explicitly anti-Semitic, although it could be interpreted as such [K9]. On
August 24, 1920, a newly founded organization, the Arbeitsgemeinschaft
deutscher Naturforscher, organized a meeting in Berlin’s largest concert hall for
the purpose of criticizing the content of relativity theory and the alleged tasteless
propaganda made for it by its author.* Einstein attended. Three days later he
replied in the Berliner Tageblatt [E44), noting that reactions might have been
otherwise had he been ‘a German national with or without swastika instead of a
Jew with liberal international convictions,’ quoting authorities such as Lorentz,
Planck, and Eddington in support of his work, and grossly insulting Lenard on
the front page. One may sympathize. By then, Lenard was already on his way to
becoming the most despicable of all German scientists of any stature. Nevertheless,
Einstein’s article is a distinctly weak piece of writing, out of style with anything
else he ever allowed to be printed under his name. On September 6 the German
minister of culture wrote to him, expressing his profound regrets about the events
of August 24 [KIO]. On September 9 Einstein wrote to Born, ‘Don’t be too hard
on me. Everyone has to sacrifice at the altar of stupidity from time to time . . . and
this I have done with my article’ [E45].

From September 19 to 25, the Gesellschaft der deutschen Naturforscher und
Arzte met in Bad Nauheim. Einstein and Lenard were present. The official record
of the meeting shows only that they engaged in useless but civilized debate on
relativity [E46]. However, Born recalls that Lenard attacked Einstein in malicious
and patently anti-Semitic ways [B6], while Einstein promised Born soon after-
ward not again to become as worked up as he had been in Nauheim lE46a). The
building in which the meeting was held was guarded by armed police [F4], but
there were no incidents.

It would, of course, have been easy for Einstein to leave Germany and find an
excellent position elsewhere. He chose not to do so because ‘Berlin is the place to
which I am most closely tied by human and scientific connections’ [E46b].

Invited by the Collie de France, Einstein went to Paris in March 1922 to
discuss his work with physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers. Relations
between France and Germany were still severely strained, and the trip was
sharply criticized by nationalists in both countries. In order to avoid demonstra-
tions, Einstein left the train to Paris at a suburban station [L6]. Shortly after this
visit, he accepted an invitation to become a member of the Committee on Intellec-
tual Cooperation of the League of Nations. Germany did not enter the League
until 1926, and so Einstein was once again in an exposed position. On June 24
Walter Rathenau, who had been foreign minister of Germany for only a few
months, a Jew and an acquaintance of Einstein’s, was assassinated. On July 4
Einstein wrote to Marie Curie that he must resign from the committee, since the
murder of Rathenau had made it clear to him that strong anti-Semitism did not
make him an appropriate member [E47]. A week later he wrote to her of his
intention to give up his Akademie position and to settle somewhere as a private

•This organization later published a book entitled 100 Autoren Gegen Einstein [12].

‘the suddenly famous doctor EINSTEIN’

317

individual [E48]. Later that same month he cited ‘my activity in Jewish causes
and, more generally, my Jewish nationality’ as reasons for his resignation [E49].
He was persuaded to stay on, however. In March 1923, shortly after French and
Belgian troops occupied the Ruhrgebiet, he resigned again, declaring that the
League had neither the strength nor the good will for the fulfillment of its great
task [E50]. In 1924 he rejoined, since he now felt that ‘he had been guided by a
passing mood of discouragement rather than by clear thinking’ [E51].*

Evidently Einstein’s life and moods were strongly affected by the strife and
violence in Germany in the early 1920s. On October 8, 1922, he left with his wife
for a five-month trip abroad. ‘After the Rathenau murder, I very much welcomed
the opportunity of a long absence from Germany, which look me away from tem-
porarily increased danger’ [Kll]. After short visits to Colombo, Singapore, Hong
Kong, and Shanghai, they arrived in Japan for a five-week stay. En route, Ein-
stein received word that he had been awarded the Nobel prize.** On the way
back, they spent twelve days in Palestine, then visited Spain, and finally returned
to Berlin in February 1923. Another trip in May /June 1925 took them to Argen-
tina, Brazil, and Uruguay. Wherever they came, from Singapore to Montevideo,
they were especially feted by local Jewish communities.

It was, one may say, a full life. There came a time when Einstein had to pay.
Early in 1928, while in Zuoz in Switzerland, he suffered a temporary physical
collapse brought on by overexertion. An enlargement of the heart was diagnosed.
As soon as practicable, he was brought back to Berlin, where he had to stay in bed
for four months. He fully recuperated but remained weak for almost a year.
‘Sometimes ... he seemed to enjoy the atmosphere of the sickroom, since it per-
mitted him to work undisturbed’ [Rl].

During that period of illness — on Friday, April 13, 1928, to be precise — Helen
Dukas began working for Einstein. She was to be his able and trusted secretary
for the rest of his life and became a member of the family.

In the summer of 1929, Einstein bought a plot of land in the small village of
Caputh, near Berlin, a few minutes’ walk from the broad stream of the Havel.
On this site a small house was built for the family. It was shortly after his fiftieth
birthday,! and several friends joined to celebrate this event by giving him a sail-
boat. Sailing on the Havel became one of his fondest pleasures.

Not long after his recovery, Einstein was on the road again. He was at Cal
Tech from December 1930 till March 1931, and again from December 1931 till
March 1932.^ Those were the years when things began to look bad in Germany,

*In 1927, Einstein, Curie, and Lorentz prepared a report for the cx)mmittee, dealing with an inter-
national bureau of meteorology (E52), Einstein’s final resignation from the committee came in April
1932 (D2].

•*See Chapter 30.

fThe city of Berlin intended to present him with a summer house, but after many altercations, not
all of them funny, this plan fell through (Rl)

!This was principally the doing of Millikan, who since 1924 had been urging Einstein to spend part
of his time in Pasadena [M3].

318

THE LATER JOURNEY

In December 1932 the Einsteins left once again for California. As they closed
their house in Caputh, Einstein turned to Elsa and said, ‘Dreh dich urn. Du
siehst’s nie wieder,’ Turn around. You will never see it again. And so it was.
What happened thereafter will be described in Section 25b.

I conclude the story of the Berlin days with an anecdote told by Harry, Count
Kessler, the chronicler of life in Berlin in the Weimar years. Some time in 1930
the sculptor Maillol came to Berlin. Einstein was one of the guests invited for a
lunch in his honor. When Einstein came in Maillol observed, ‘line belle tete; c’est
un poete?’ And, said Kessler, 'I had to explain to him who Einstein was; he had
evidently never heard of him’ [K12].

16e. The Later Writings

7. The Man of Culture. All the papers Einstein published before finishing his
work on the formulation of general relativity deal either directly with research or
with reviews of research, with minor exceptions: a note in honor of Planck written
in 1913 [E53] and reviews of booklets on relativity by Brill and by Lorentz
[E53a]. Thereafter, the writings change, very slowly at first. From 1916 to 1920
we find the early eulogies — to Mach, Schwarzschild, Smoluchowski, Leo Arons —
and a few more reviews of others’ work — of Lorentz’s Paris lectures [E54], of
Helmholtz’s lectures on Goethe [E55], of Weyl’s book on relativity [ESb). After
1920 there is a far more noticeable change as he starts writing on public affairs,
political issues, education. The more important of these contributions have been
reprinted in various collections of Einstein essays. I shall not discuss them here.

After 1920 Einstein wrote fairly often on scientific personalities. He was, of
course, an obvious candidate for contributions commemorating Kepler [E57],
Newton [E57a), and Maxwell [E58]. In these essays he emphasized points of
general principle. On other occasions he clearly enjoyed writing about technical
issues, whether of a theoretical or an experimental nature, as, for example, his
pieces on Kelvin [E59] and Warburg [E60]. He spoke at Lorentz’s grave and
commemorated him on other occasions as well [E61]. He wrote tributes [E62] to
Ehrenfest, Marie Curie, Nernst, Langevin, and Planck; also to Julius [E63],
Exlison [E64], Michelson [E65], and Noether [E66]. He wrote in praise of Arago
[E67] and Newcomb [E68] and of his friend Berliner [E69]. As I have mentioned
before, these portraits show Einstein’s keen perception of people and thereby con-
tribute to a composite portrait of Einstein himself. In addition, they make clear
that his interest in physics ranged far beyond his own immediate research.

Einstein had a lifelong interest in philosophy. As a schoolboy, he had read Kant.
With his friends in Bern he had studied Spinoza’s ethics, Hume’s treatise of
human nature, Mill’s system of logic, Avenarius’s critique of pure experience, and
other philosophical works. As I already remarked in Chapter 1 , calling Einstein
a philosopher sheds as much light on him as calling him a musician. ‘Is not all of
philosophy as if written in honey? It looks wonderful when one contemplates it,
but when one looks again it is all gone. Only mush remains,’ he once said [R21.

‘the suddenly famous doctor EINSTEIN’

319

Even though Einstein’s interest in and impact on philosophy were strong, he
himself never wrote articles that may be called philosophical in a technical sense.
After 1920 he wrote occasional reviews of or introductions for philosophical
works, however. His reviews of books on epistemology by Weinberg [E70] and
Winternitz [E71] show his familiarity with Kant. So does the record of his dis-
cussions with French philosophers in 1922. When one of these referred to a pos-
sible connection between Einstein’s ideas and those of Kant, Einstein replied:

In regard to Kant’s philosophy, I believe that every philosopher has his own
Kant. . . . Arbitrary concepts are necessary in order to construct science; as to
whether these concepts are given a priori or are arbitrary conventions, I can
say nothing. (£72]

From Einstein’s introduction to a new translation of Galileo’s Dialogue [E731, we
see that he had read Plato. He wrote an introduction to a new German translation
of Lucretius’s De Rerum Natura [E74]. He was familiar with Bertrand Russell’s
theory of knowledge [E75]. His philosophical interests are also manifest in his
review of Emile Meyerson’s La Deduction Relatwiste [E76] and his introductions
to books by Planck [E77] and Frank [E78]. Among the oriental philosophers, he
appreciated Confucius. Once, in Princeton, he fell asleep during a lecture on Zen
Buddhism. Perhaps he was tired that evening.

Einstein continued to consider philosophy ennobling in his later years. In 1944
he wrote to Benedetto Croce, ‘I would not think that philosophy and reason itself
will be man’s guide in the foreseeable future; however, they will remain the most
beautiful sanctuary they have always been for the select’ [E79).

Among the many contributions that show Einstein as a man of culture, I select
two for brief additional comments.

The first is his appreciation of Maxwell (E58], one of his precursors. In Ein-
stein’s opinion, Maxwell was a revolutionary figure. The purely mechanical
world picture was upset by ‘the great revolution forever linked with the names
Faraday, Maxwell, and Hertz. The lion’s share in this revolution was Max-
well’s. . . . Since Maxwell’s time, physical reality has been thought of as repre-
sented by continuous fields. . . . This change in the conception of reality is the most
profound and the most fruitful that physics has experienced since the time of New-
ton.’ Elsewhere Einstein wrote of Maxwell, ‘Imagine his feelings when the dif-
ferential equations he had formulated proved to him that electromagnetic fields
spread in the form of polarized waves and with the speed of light!’ [E80].

The second comment deals with the views on religion [E81 ]. ‘A religious person
is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance of those superper-
sonal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational founda-
tion.’ Thus, according to Einstein, ‘a legitimate conflict between science and reli-
gion cannot exist. . . . Science without religion is lame, religion without science is
blind.’ By his own definition, Einstein himself was, of course, a deeply religious
man.

2. The Man of Science. With the formulation of the field equations of grav-

320

THE LATER JOURNEY

itation in November 1915, classical physics (that is, nonquantum physics) reached
its perfection and Einstein’s scientific career its high point. His oeuvre does not
show anything like an abrupt decline thereafter. Despite much illness, his years
from 1916 to 1920 were productive and fruitful, both in relativity and in quantum
theory. A gentle decline begins after 1920. There is a resurgence toward the end
of 1924 (the quantum theory of the monatomic gas). After that, the creative period
ceases abruptly, though scientific efforts continue unremittingly for another thirty
years.

Who can gauge the extent to which the restlessness of Einstein’s life in the
1920s was the cause or the effect of a lessening of creative powers? Many influ-
ences were obviously beyond his volition: age, illness, many of his administrative
obligations, wordly fame, the violence of the early Weimar period. At the same
time, I perceive in his writings after 1916 a natural diminution of creative tension.
His activities in public affairs were no doubt the result of a combination of strong
inner urges and of those demands on him which are part of the burdens of fame.
It is less clear to me to what extent he would have responded to these pressures
if physics had been as all-consuming to him as it was in earlier days. It is my
impression that, after 1916, Einstein finally had some energy to spare for the
world in which he lived. Kessler’s chronicles [K12] and Kayser’s biography [Rl]
indicate that participation in Berlin’s social life gave him pleasure. So did conver-
sations with statesmen like Rathenau, Stresemann, and Briand, and later Church-
ill and Roosevelt. Letters (not in the Princeton Archives) written by Einstein in
the early 1920s, showing that for several years he had a strong attachment to a
younger woman, express emotions for which, perhaps, he had no energy to spare
in his marriages. This interlude ended late in 1924, when he wrote to her that he
had to seek in the stars what was denied him on earth. That line was written only
months before the discovery of quantum mechanics, the time at which a younger
generation of physicists took over the lead while Einstein went his own way.

I return to Einstein’s physics. Two major items remain to be discussed, unified
field theory and quantum theory. I deal with Einstein’s work on unified field
theory first, since it is a direct outgrowth of general relativity, the last scientific
topic treated before the present long digression on the suddenly famous Doctor
Einstein. Then I turn to Einstein and the quantum theory, begining once again
with events in the year 1905 and continuing from there until his final days.

A line from a letter in 1928 from Einstein to Ehrenfest may serve as an epi-
graph to the later writings:

1 believe less than ever in the essentially statistical nature of events and have
decided to use the little energy still given to me in ways that are independent of
the current bustle. [E82]

References

Al. Algemeen Handelsblad, November 10, 1919.

Bl. B. Bertotti, D. Brill, and R. Krotkov in Gravitation (L. Witten, Ed.), p. 1. Wiley,
New York, 1962.

‘THE SUDDENLY FAMOUS DOCTOR EINSTEIN'

321

B2. A. M. Bicnfait-Visscr, letter to A. Pais, February 12, 1980.

B3. K. Blumenfeld in Helle Zeit, dunkle Zeit, p. 74. Europa Verlag, Zurich, 1956.

54 ^ letter to C. Weizmann, March 15, 1921; ETH Bibl. Zurich Hs. 304,

201-4.

B5. , Im Kampf um den Ztonismus, p. 66. Deutsches Verlag Anst, Stuttgart,

1968.

B6. M. Born in Einstein-Bom Bnefwechsel, p. 60. Nympenburger, Munich, 1969.
Cl. C. Chaplin, My Autobiography, p. 346, The Bodley Head, London, 1964.

Dl. F. W. Dyson, M. N. Roy. Astr. Soc. 77, 445 (1917).

D2. A. Dufour, letter to A. Einstein, April 23, 1932.

El. A. Einstein, letter to M. Besso, December 10, 1915; EB, p. 59.

E2. , letter to P. Ehrenfest, February 14, 1917.

E3. , letter to H. A. Lorentz, April 23, 1917.

E4. , letter to H. Zangger, March 10, 1917.

E5. , letter to M. Besso, May 13, 1917; EB, p. 1 14.

E6. , letter to M. Besso, September 3, 1917; EB, p. 121.

E7. , letter to H. Zangger, December 6, 1917.

E8. , letter to P. Ehrenfest, November 12, 1917.

E9. , letter to M. Besso, January 5, 1918; EB, p. 124.

ElO. , letter to D. Hilbert, undated, April 1918.

Ell. , letter to H. Zangger, undated, early 1918.

E12. , letter to P. Ehrenfest, May 8, 1918.

El 3. , letter to M. Besso, August 20, 1918; EB, p. 132.

El 4. , letter to P. Ehrenfest, December 6, 1918.

El 5. , letter to M. Besso, December 4, 1918; EB, p. 145.

E16. , letter to C. Seelig, May 5, 1952.

El 7. , letter to P. Ehrenfest, September 12, 1919.

E18. , letter to M. Besso, July 26, 1920; EB, p. 151.

El 9. E. Einstein, letter to P. Ehrenfest, April 5, 1932.

E20. A. Einstein, letter to M. Born undated, probably 1937; Einstein- Born Bnefwech-
sel, p. 177. Nymphenburger, Munich, 1969.

E21. , Lettres d Maurice Solovine, p. 134. Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1956.

E22. , letter to V. Besso, March 21, 1955; EB, p. 537.

E23. , letter to P. Wintcler and family, undated, May 1919.

E24. E. Einstein, letter to P. Ehrenfest, December 10, 1919.

E25. A. Einstein, letter to H. Zangger, undated, January 1920.

F26. , letter to H. Zangger, undated, March 1920.

E27. , postcard to P. Einstein, September 27, 1919.

E28. , Naturw. 7, 776 (1919).

E29. , letter to M. Besso, undated, March 1914; EB. p. 52.

E30. 1915, p. 831.

E31. , letter to A. Sommerfeld, November 28, 1915.

E32. J. Earman and C. Glymour, Hist. St. Phys. Sci. 11, 49 (1980).

E33. A. S. Eddington, Report on the Relativity Theory of Gravitation. Fleetway Press,
London, 1918.

E34. , M. N. Roy. Astr. Soc. 77, 377 (1917).

E35. , Observatory 42, 119(1919).

E36. a. Einstein, letter to C. Stumpf, November 3, 1919.

322

THE LATER JOURNEY

E37. A. S. Eddington, letter to A. Einstein, December 1, 1919.

E38. A. Einstein, Die Vosstsche Zeitung, April 26, 1914.

E39. , Aether und Relatwitdtstheone. Springer, Berlin, 1920.

E40. , letter to J. Hadamard, Sept. 24, 1929.

E41. , letter to P. Epstein, October 5, 1919.

E42. , letter to P. Ehrcnfest, December 4, 1919.

E42a. , About Zionism (L. Simon, Tran.), p. 40. Macmillan, New York, 1931.

E43. ,[E42a],pp. 41,43.

E44. , Berliner Tageblatt, August 27, 1920.

E45. , letter to M. Born, September 9, 1920.

E46. and P. Lenard, Phys. Zeitschr. 21, 666 (1921).

E46a. , letter to M. Born, undated, autumn 1920.

E46b. , letter to K. Haenisch, September 8, 1920; (Kl], Vol. 1, p. 204.

E47. , letter to M. Curie, July 4, 1921.

E48. , letter to M. Curie, July 11, 1921.

E49. , letter to G. Murray, July 25, 1922.

E50. , letter to the Committee on Intellectual Cooperation, March 21 , 1923; New

York Times, June 28, 1923.

E51. , letter to G. Murray, May 30, 1924.

E52. , M. Curie, and H. A. Lorcntz, Science 65, 415 (1927).

E53. , Naturw. 1, 1077 (1913).

E53a. , Naturw. 2, 1018 (1914).

E54. , Naturw. i, m (me).

E55. , Naturw. 5, 675 (1917).

E56. 6, 373 (1918).

E57. , Frankfurter Zeitung, November 9, 1930.

E57a. , see Refs. (E81-[E1 1] in Chap. 1.

E58. , in James Clerk Maxwell, p. 66. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,

1931.

E59. , Naturw. 12, 601 (1924).

E60. , Naturw. 10, 823 (1922).

E61. , Mein Weltbild, pp. 32, 35, 39. Europa, Zurich, 1953.

E62. , Out of My Later Years, Philosophical Library, New York, 1950.

E63. , Astrophys. /. 63, 196 (1926).

E64. , Science, 74, 404 (1931).

E65. , Z. Angew. Chemie 44, 658 (1931).

E66. , New York Times, May 4, 1935.

E67. , Naturw. 17, 363 (1929).

E68. , Science 69, 249 (1929).

E69. , Naturw. 20, 913 (1932).

E70. , Naturw. 18, 536 (1930).

E71. , Deutsche Literatur zeitung. Heft 1, p. 20, 1924.

E72. , Bull. Soc. Fran. Philosophte 22, 91 (1922).

E73. , foreword to Galileo’s Dialogue (S. Drake, Tran.). University of California

Press, Berkeley, 1967.

E74. , introduction to Lukrez, Von der Natur (H. Diels, Tran.). Weidmann, Ber-

lin, 1924.

‘the suddenly famous doctor EINSTEIN’

323

E75. , in The Philosophy of Bertrand Russell (P. A. Schilpp, Ed.), p. Til . Tudor,

New York, 1944.

E76. , Rev. Phil. France 105 , 161 (1928).

E77. , prologue to M. Planck, Where Is Science Going? Norton, New York, 1932.

E78. , foreword to P. Frank, Relativity, a Richer Truth. Beacon Press, Boston,

1950.

E79, , letter to B. Croce, June 7, 1944.

E80. , Science 91, 487 (1940).

E81. , 146 , 605 (1941).

E82. , letter to P. Ehrenfest, August 23, 1928.

FI. P. Frank, Einstein, His Life and Times, p 124. Knopf, New York, 1953.

F2. , Einstein, Sein Leben und Seine Zeit, p. 106. Vieweg, Braunschweig, 1979

F3. ,[F2],p. 290.

F4. ,[F2],p. 275.

Gl. P. Gay, Freud, Jews and Other Germans, p. 172. Oxford University Press, New
York, 1978.

HI. F. Herneck, Einstein Pnvat, p. 29. Der Morgen, Berlin, 1978.

II J. Ishiwara, Einstein ko en roku, p 193. Tokyo-Tosho, Tokyo, 1978.

12. H. Israel, E. Ruckhaber, and R. Weinmann (Eds.), 100 Autoren Gegen Einstein.
Voigtlander, Leipzig, 1931.

Kl. C. Kirsten and H. J. Treder, Einstein in Berlin, Vol. 1, documents 148-60.
Akadamie Verlag, Berlin, 1979.

K2.

,[Klj, Vol.

1, documents 59-68.

K3.

,[K11, Vol.

1, documents 81 -7.

K4.

,(K11, Vol.

1, pp. 22, 54, 58.

K5.

, [Kll, Vol.

1, p. 198.

K6.

,[K11, Vol.

l,p. 215.

K7.

,[K1|, Vol.

1, p. 219.

K8.

,[K1], Vol.

1, p. 223.

K9.

,[K1], Vol.

l,p. 202.

KIO.

,[K1], Vol.

1, p. 210.

Kll.

,[K1], Vol.

1, p. 231.

K12. H. Kessler, In the Twenties, p. 396. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York,
1976.

Ll. H. A Lorentz, letter to A. Einstein, March 22, 1917.

L2. , telegram to A. Einstein, September 27, 1919.

L3. , letter to P. Ehrenfest, September 22, 1919.

L4. , telegram to A. Einstein, November 10, 1919.

L5. London Times, ]\xnt 14, 1921.

L6. J. Langevin, Cahiers Fundamenta Scientiae, No. 93, 1979.

Ml. D. F. Moyer in On the Path of Albert Einstein, p. 55. Plenum Press, New York,
1979.

M2. K. von Mayrhauser, letter to A. Einstein, October 11, 1926.

M3. R. Millikan, letter to A. Einstein, October 2, 1924.

Nl. New York Times, August 16, 1914.

N2. A^a/Mre94, 66 (1914).

N3. New Catholic Encyclopedia, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1967.

324

THE LATER JOURNEY

N3a. Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant, November 9 and 11, 1919.

N4. New York Times, December 21, 1919.

N5. New York Times, December 3, 1919.

N6. New York Times, November 16, 1919.

N7. New York Times, January 28, 1928.

N8. O. Nathan and M. Norden, Einstein on Peace, p. 98. Schocken, New York, 1968.
N9. ,[N81, p. 141.

01. Obsermtory, 42, 256 (1919).

02. Observatory, 42, 389 (1919); see also, Proc. Roy. Soc 96A, i (1919).

Rl. A. Reiser, Albert Einstein. Boni, New York, 1930.

R2. I. Rosenthal-Schneider, Reality and Scientific Truth, p. 62. Wayne State Univer-
sity Press, Detroit, 1980.

51. N. Saz, Forschungen d. Pad. Hochsch. ‘Karl Liebknecht,’ Naturw. Reihe B, No.
14, p. 59.

52. W. de Sitter, Observatory 39, 412 (1916).

53. - — , M. N Roy. Astr. Soc. 76, 699 (1916); 77, 155, 481 (1917); 78, 3, 341
(1917).

54. C. Stumpf, letter to A. Einstein, October 22, 1919.

Tl. J. J. Thomson, Proc. Roy Soc. 96 A, 311 (1919).

T2. M. Talmey, The Relativity Theory Simplified, p. 164. Falcon Press, New York,
1932.

Ul. G. E. Uhlenbeck in Some Strangeness in the Proportion (H. Woolf, Ed.), p. 524.
Addison- Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1980.

Unified Field Theory

17a. Particles and Fields around 1920

Einstein died early on a Monday morning. The day before, he had asked for his
most recent pages of calculations on unified field theory. The awareness of unfin-
ished work was with him, and not just in those final hours when he knew that
death was near. It had been so throughout his life. Nearly forty years earlier, he
had written to Felix Klein:

However we select from nature a complex (of phenomena) using the criterion
of simplicity, in no case will its theoretical treatment turn out to be forever
appropriate (sufficient). Newton’s theory, for example, represents the gravita-
tional field in a seemingly complete way by means of the potential 0. This
description proves to be wanting; the functions take its place. But I do not
doubt that the day will come when that description, too, will have to yield to
another one, for reasons which at present we do not yet surmise. I believe that
this process of deepening the theory has no limits. (El)

That was written in 1917, shortly before he began his search for the unification
of gravitation and electromagnetism. Those were still the days in which he knew
with unerring instinct how to select complexes from nature to guide his scientific
steps. Even then he already had a keen taste for mathematical elegance as well,
but did not yet believe that formal arguments alone could be relied upon as mark-
ers for the next progress in physics. Thus, later in 1917, when Felix Klein wrote
to him about the conformal invariance of the Maxwell equations [Kl), he replied:

It does seem to me that you highly overrate the value of formal points of view.
These may be valuable when an already found [his italics) truth needs to be
formulated in a final form, but fail almost always as heuristic aids. [E21

Nothing is more striking about the later Einstein than his change of position in
regard to this advice, given when he was in his late thirties. I do not believe that
his excessive reliance in later years on formal simplicity did him much good,
although I do not accept the view of some that this change was tragic. Nothing in
Einstem’s scientific career was tragic, even though some of his work will be
remembered forever and some of it will be forgotten. In any event, when Einstein
embarked on his program for a unified field theory, his motivation was thoroughly

325

326

THE LATER JOURNEY

physical. In order to appreciate this, we must first have a brief look at the physics
of particles and fields around 1920.

During the second decade of the twentieth century, there were advances in the-
oretical physics of the highest calibre. Rutherford discovered the atomic nucleus,
Bohr the quantum theory of the atom, Einstein general relativity. It was also the
time that provided one of the most striking examples of how physicists can tem-
px)rarily be led astray by the selection of complexes from nature on grounds of
simplicity. The case in point is the model of the nucleus built of protons and
electrons.

Rutherford had discovered the proton (so baptized in 1919), the nucleus of the
lightest atom. Bohr had been the first to realize that beta decay is a process in
which electrons are ejected from the nucleus. What then was more obvious than
to assume that the nuclear weight was almost entirely due to a number of con-
stituent protons equal to the mass number, with the difTerence between mass num-
ber and charge number equal to the number of constituent electrons? The nucleus
must be considered ‘as a very complex structure . . . consisting of positively-
charged particles and electrons, but it is premature (and would serve no useful
purpose) to discuss at the present time the possible structure of the nucleus itself
[Rl]. Thus Rutherford expressed himself on the structure of the atom during a
Royal Society meeting held on March 19, 1914. Even the cautious Rutherford
had but one choice for the nature of the internuclear forces. Again in 1914 he
wrote, ‘The nucleus, though of minute dimensions, is in itself a very complex
system consisting of positively and negatively charged bodies bound closely
together by intense electrical forces’ [R2] (my italics). Nuclear binding energy, he
conjectured, is an electromagnetic effect. ‘As Lorentz has pointed out, the electrical
mass of a system of charged particles, if close together, will depend not only on
the number of these particles, but on the way their fields interact. For the dimen-
sions of the positive and negative electrons considered [a positive electron being a
proton], the packing must be very close in order to produce an appreciable alter-
ation in the mass due to this cause. This may, for example, be the explanation of
the fact that the helium atom has not quite four times the mass of the hydrogen
atom’ [R3].

Thus all forces within the atom, whether peripheral or in its core, were initially
perceived to be electrical. This was a natural thought, especially since the nucleus
had been discovered to begin with by the observation that the scattering of alpha
particles on atoms was dominated by a coulomb interaction between the alpha
particle and a near- pointlike atomic core. Not until 1919 did these scatterings give
a first intimation that all was not electrical [R4]. Not until 1921 did experiments
show beyond doubt that the 1 /r^ force law breaks down at small distances. ‘It is
our task to find some field of force which will represent these effects. . . . The
present experiments . . . show that the forces are of very great intensity [Clj.

UNIFIED FIELD THEORY

327

These last words (italicized by me) represent the first instance, as best I know,
where it is stated in the literature that there are strong interactions. It was the
second great discovery by James Chadwick. His first one had been made in 1914:
the primary beta spectrum is continuous [C2]. Until well into the 1920s, this con-
tinuity was believed to have secondary causes. The neutrino was not postulated
until 1929.

Thus nuclear physics began with a nucleus without neutrons, beta decay with-
out neutrinos. Matter was made of protons and electrons. There were neither
weak nor strong interactions. In the beginning there was only electromagnetism.
And, of course, there was gravitation.

Which brings us back to unified field theory.

When Einstein, Weyl, and others began their work on unified field theory, it
was natural to assume that this task consisted exlusively of the union of gravitation
with electromagnetism. To be sure, the separateness of these two fields posed no
conflicts or paradoxes. There were no puzzles such as the Michelson-Morley
experiment nor curious coincidences like the equality of the inertial and the grav-
itational mass. Nevertheless, it seemed physically well-motivated and appealing to
ask, Do nature’s only two fields of force, both long-range in character, have a
common origin ?

Then it came to pass that physics veered toward a different course, neither led
nor followed by Einstein. First quantum mechanics and then quantum field theory
took center stage. New forces had to be introduced. New particles were proposed
and discovered. Amid all these developments, Einstein stayed with the unification
of gravitation and electromagnetism, the final task he set himself. This insistence
brought the ultimate degree of apartness to his life.

After his death, the urge for unification returned and became widespread, but
both the goals and the methods of pursuit are different now. At the end of this
chapter I shall comment further on this new look of the unification program. I
turn next to an account of Einstein’s own efforts at unification. It remains to be
seen whether his methods will be of any relevance for the theoretical physics of
the future. Certainly this work of his did not produce any results of physical inter-
est. I therefore believe it will suffice to indicate (omitting details as much as pos-
sible) the two general directions in which he looked for the realization of his aims.
One of these, based on the extension of space-time to a five-dimensional manifold,
is discussed in the Section 17c. The other, based on generalizations of the geometry
of Riemann, is treated in Section 17e. The discussion of this second category is
preceded by a brief excursion into post-Riemannian geometry and a comment on
the influence of Einstein’s general relativity on mathematics.

In the early 1920s, the structure of the nucleus was an interesting but secondary
problem and the unification of forces a minor issue. Quantum phenomena posed
the central challenge. Einstein was well aware of this when, at age forty, he began

328

THE LATER JOURNEY

his search for unification. In fact, by then he already believed that the need to
unify forces and the need to resolve the quantum paradoxes were connected
desiderata. In later years, he was one among few to search for unification and one
among few to be critical of quantum mechanics. He was unique in holding the
view that there was a link between these problem areas. In this chapter, nothing
further will be said on Einstein and quantum physics. However, in Chapter 26
I shall return to his hopes for a new dynamics, based on a generalization of general
relativity, in which quantum mechanics would be explained rather than
postulated.

17b. Another Decade of Gestation

Einstein completed his first paper on unified field theory in January 1922.

Much had happened to him since the strenuous days of November 1915, when
he completed his general relativity theory. He had done his share of applying this
theory to the energy -momentum conservation problem, to gravitational waves,
and to cosmology. He had introduced the A and B coefficients in quantum theory.
He had been ill. He had remarried. After November 1919 he had become a world
figure. He had been in the midst of turmoil in Germany. And he had made his
first trip to the United States. The problem of unification had been on his mind
in the intervening years, even though he had not published on this subject. In 1918
he wrote to Weyl, ‘Ultimately it must turn out that action densities must not be
glued together additively. I too, concocted various things, but time and again I
sank my head in resignation’ [E3]. His statement to Ehrenfest in 1920, ‘I have
made no progress in general relativity theory. The electromagnetic field still stands
there in unconnected fashion’ [E4), expressed both his disbelief in Weyl’s theory
(to be described in Section 17d) and his conviction that unification is a worthy
cause. When he wrote to Weyl in 1922 about unified theories, ‘I believe that in
order to make real progress one must again ferret out some general principle from
nature’ [E5], he was still taking his cues from physics.

Nor were his interests in physics in those years confined to general relativity,
whether of the orthodox or of the unified variety. His letters of that period to
Ehrenfest, always filled with physics ideas that intrigued him, deal largely with
the quantum theory. In 1921 he was excited about his new proposal for an exper-
iment to test quantum aspects in Doppler phenomena [E6]. In 1922 he was
intrigued by the Stem-Gerlach experiment [E7]. His January 1922 paper on
unified field theory, written with Grommer [E8], is never mentioned in these let-
ters, but a few weeks after its completion he wrote of his work with Grommer on
quantum problems [E9]. In 1923 he and Ehrenfest worked on the quantum the-
ory of radiative equilibrium [ElO], and, together with another friend,* he pub-
lished his last paper on experimental physics, a determination of the width of

•See the entry about Muhsam in Chapter 29.

UNIFIED FIELD THEORY

329

capillaries in membranes [Ell]. Late in 1924 and early in 1925, his three papers
on the Bose- Einstein gas were completed (see Chapter 23).

Meanwhile he was not altogether idle in regard to unified field theory. There
is the Einstein -Grommer paper of 1922 in response to the Kaluza theory (see
Section 17c). There are several papers in 1923 (to be discussed in Section 17e)
elaborating an attempt at unification due to Eddington. But it is not until 1925
that we witness his first truly deep immersion in this subject, as he came forth
with an invention all his own of a new version of unification.

From that time on, the character of Einstein’s scientific output changes. In 1926
he wrote three papers of that playful but not at all flippant variety which he had
so often produced in earlier years, one on the meandering of rivers [El 2], two on
the light emission by canal rays [El 3, El 4]. They were his last in this genre. The
later period begins. He is nearly fifty years old. Occasionally there are papers on
conventional general relativity, such as those on the problem of motion. But uni-
fied field theory now becomes the main thrust of his eflforts, along with the search
for an alternative that deprives quantum mechanics of its status as a fundamental
theory. I have already alluded to the fact that these two themes were — in his
view — intimately related, a subject to which I shall return at more length in Sec-
tion 26e.

Heisenberg’s first paper on matrix mechanics [HI ] and Einstein’s first privately
created unified field theory [El 5] were both completed in July 1925; Schroedin-
ger’s first paper on wave mechanics in January 1926 [Slj. Einstein’s gestation
period before he made the real plunge into unified field theory had lasted about a
decade, just as it had been for the special and the general theories of relativity.
This time, however, it was not he but others who in the end ushered in the new
physics. So it was to remain in the next decade, and the next and the next, until
he laid down his pen and died. His work on unification was probably all in vain,
but he had to pursue what seemed centrally important to him, and he was never
afraid to do so. That was his destiny.

Let us see next what he did, first with five-dimensional theories.

17c. The Fifth Dimension

/. Kaluza and Oskar Klein. The two pioneers of unified field theory were both
mathematicians. The first unification, based on a generalization of Riemannian
geometry in the usual four space-time dimensions, was proposed by Hermann
Weyl in 1918 (see Section 17d), With the same aim in mind, and inspired by
Weyl’s paper, the mathematician and consummate linguist Theodor Kaluza
became the first to suggest that unification might be achieved by extending space-
time to a five-dimensional manifold.* His one paper on this subject was published

*In 1914 Nordstrdm had already proposed to use a five-dimensional space for the unification of
electromagnetism with a scalar gravitational field |N1].

330

THE LATER JOURNEY

in 1921 [K2], but he already had this idea in 1919, for in April of that year
Einstein wrote to him, ‘The idea of achieving (a unified theory] by means of a
five-dimensional cylinder world never dawned on me. ... At first glance I like
your idea enormously’ [El 6]. Still very much in the Machian mood, Einstein
added that one ought to examine whether this new theory would allow for a sen-
sible solution of the cosmological problem.* A few weeks later, he wrote to him
again, ‘The formal unity of your theory is startling’[E18]. In 1921 he communi-
cated Kaluza’s work to the Prussian Academy. (I do not know why this publica-
tion was delayed so long.)

Kaluza’s well-written paper contains nearly all the main points of the five-
dimensional approach:

1 . The introduction of an invariant line element

ds^ = y^dx'^dx'' \, . . . ,5 (17.1)

in which the metric tensor satisfies two constraints. First, the y^ shall
depend only on the space-time coordinates x\ i = 1, . . ,4:

Secondly, 755 is assumed to be a positive numerical invariant that may be nor-
malized such that

7s5 = 1 (17.3)

Thus we deal with a cylinder world, the fifth axis is preferred, the fifth direc-
tion is space-like. Equation 17.3 has become known as the cylinder condition.

2. 7,5, a 4-vector field relative to the Riemannian space- time submanifold is
assumed to be proportional to the electromagnetic potential.

3. The field equations are

(17.4)

where and R are the familiar functions of the and their first derivatives
and is the energy -momentum tensor exclusive of the purely electromag-
netic contribution. Kaluza considered only the case where the source is a single
point particle with mass m and charge e, = mu^u\ u'* = dx^/ds, and
showed that for m> one obtains the gravitational field equations; fi, v

= I, 5, yield the Maxwell equations; m, = 5, 5, reduces to a trivial identity.
The identification of the Maxwell equations requires that be proportional
to e/m. Thus mu'" is the 5-vcctor of ‘momentum-energy-charge.’

4. A geodesic in the cylinder world can be identified with the trajectory of a
charged test particle moving in a combined gravitational-electromagnetic field.

*As was mentioned in Section 15e, Einstein had used the cosmological term in 1919 for the purpose
of linking electromagnetism to gravitation [£17].

UNIFIED FIELD THEORY

331

Kaluza proved his results only for the case where the fields are weak (i.e,,
gii^~ V I I 1 ) ^55 = 1) and the velocity is small {v/c<^\). An impor-

tant advance was made by Oskar Klein, who showed in 1926* that these two
constraints are irrelevant [K3]. Unification (at least this version) has nothing to
do with weak fields and low velocities. The resulting formulation has since become
known as the Kaluza-Klein theory. Its gist can be stated as follows.

1. Start with the quadratic form Eq. 17.1 and demand that it be invariant under
a group G5 of transformations that is the product of the familiar group of point
transformation in and the group 5',, defined by

^5 = ^5 + /(^') (17.5)

The relations 17.2 and 17.3 are invariant under G^.

2. Define by

g^k = y^k - 7.57*5 (17.6)

The are symmetric; they are a tensor under G4 and are invariant under 5’,.
Thus we can define dx'dx'' as the standard line element in R^.

3. Define the electromagnetic potentials 0, by

0 , = \/2k 7,5 (17.6a)

They are a four-vector under G4 and (since Eq. 17.1 is invariant under G5)
they transform under S\ as

</>: = 0, - ^ (17.7)

which shows that is a geometrized version of the local electromagnetic gauge
group.

4. Let be the curvature scalar in five-space. A straightforward calculation
shows that

/?( 5 > = RW + I55
4

p _ M ^
'* ax* dx‘

(17.8)

(17.9)

where R^*'^ is the curvature scalar in R^. Thus R^^^ is the unified Lagrangian
for gravitation and electromagnetism! Equation 17.8 makes clear why the fac-
tor \/^ was introduced in Eq. 17.6a and why it is important that 755 be taken
positive (and normalized to +1).

5. In 1926 Klein already believed that the fifth dimension might have something
to do with quantization [K4], an idea that stayed with him for many years

*In the same year, the five-dimensional unification was discovered independently by Mandel (Ml);

see also I M2] and(Fl].

334

THE LATER JOURNEY

quantum phenomena). This was his motivation: it is anomalous to replace the
four-dimensional continuum by a five-dimensional one and then subsequently to
tie up artificially one of these five dimensions in order to account for the fact that
it does not manifest itself. We have succeeded in formulating a theory which for-
mally approximates Kaluza’s theory without being exposed to the objection just
stated. This is accomplished by the introduction of an entirely new mathematical
concept’ [E26].

The new mathematics presented by Einstein and Mayer in two papers [E24,
E27] does not involve the embedding of the Riemann manifold in a five-space.
Instead, a five-dimensional vector space M5 is associated with each point of
and the local Minkowski space (call it M^) is embedded in the local M5, which
has (4 H- l)-metric. Prescriptions are introduced for decomposing tensors in A/s
with respect to M^. The transport of 5-tensors from one to another Ms
attached to a neighboring point in R 4 is defined. This involves a five-dimensional
connection of which (so it is arranged) some components are identified with the
Riemannian connection in R 4 while, in addition, only an antisymmetrical tensor
Fju appears, which is identified with the electromagnetic field.* However (as Ein-
stein noted in a letter to Pauli [E28]), one has to assume that F^i is the curl of a
4-vector; also, the Einstein-Mayer equations are not derivable from a variational
principle. After 1932 we find no trace of this theory in Einstein’s work.

In a different environment, he made one last try at a five-dimensional theory.
He was in America now. His old friend Ehrenfest was gone. The year was 1938.
This time he had in mind not to make less real than Kaluza- Klein, but more
real. At first he worked with Peter Bergmann; later Valentin Bargmann joined
them. Altogether, their project was under active consideration for some three
years. Bergmann’s textbook tells us what the motivation was:

It appeared impossible for an iron-clad four-dimensional theory ever to account
for the results of quantum theory, in particular for Heisenberg’s indeterminacy
relation. Since the description of a five-dimensional world in terms of a four-
dimensional formalism would be incomplete, it was hoped that the indetermi-
nacy of ‘four dimensional’ laws would account for the indeterminacy relation
and that quantum phenomena would, after all, be explained by a (classical)
field theory. [Bl]

Their approach was along the lines of Klein’s idea [K4] that the 5-space is closed
in the fifth direction with a fixed period. The group is again G5 (see Eq. 17.5).
The line element (Eq. 17.1), the condition (Eq. 17.3) on 7^^, and the definition
(Eq. 17.6) of gjf are also maintained, but Eq. 17.2 is generalized. It is still assumed
that the 7,5 (the electromagnetic potentials) depend only on x\ but (and this is
new) the are allowed to depend periodically on The resulting formalism is

•These rules are summarized in papers by Pauli and Solomon (P2) that have been reproduced in
Pauli’s collcrtcd works (PJ).

UNIFIED FIELD THEORY

335

discussed in much detail in Bergmann’s book (see also [B2] and [PI]). Two ver-
sions of the theory were considered. In the first one [E29], the field equations are
derived from a variational principle. Because of the new dependence, they are
integro-differential equations (an integration over remains). They also contain
several arbitrary constants because the action can contain new invariants (depend-
ing on derivatives of the with respect to x^). In a second version [E30], the
variational principle is abandoned and Bianchi identities which constrain these
constants are postulated.

In theories of this kind, the can be represented by (the period is normalized
to 27r):

n--oo

(17.15)

Bargmann and Bergmann told me that Einstein thought that the higher Fourier
components might somehow be related to quantum fields. He gave up the five-
dimensional approach for good when these hopes did not materialize.

3. Addenda. Other attempts to use five- or more-dimensional manifolds for
a description of the physical world continue to be made.

a) Soon after the Einstein -Mayer theory, another development in five-dimen-
sional theory began, known as projective relativity, to which many authors con-
tributed.* In this theory the space-time coordinates x' are assumed to be homo-
geneous functions of degree zero in five coordinates X^. A Riemann metric with
invariant line element ds^ — g^dX'^dX'' is introduced in the projective 5-space
(which has signature 4 + 1). The condition

= 1 (17.16)

takes the place of the cylinder condition. The quantities 7 * = dx^/dX" project
from the 5-space to the 4-space.** One proves that

. ] dF

c Fax’"

(17.17)

where are the electromagnetic potentials and F is an arbitrary homogeneous
function of degree one in the X^. Thus the projective coordinates themselves are
directly related to the potentials up to a 5-gauge transformation.

The Dirac equation in projective space was discussed by Pauli [P4]. Variational
methods were applied to this theory by Pais [P5] with the following results. Let

*For detailed references, see especially [82). The best introduction to this subject is a pair of papers
by Pauli [P4].

**The mathematical connection between this theory and the Kaluza-Klein theory is discussed in
(Bl).

336

THE LATER JOURNEY

«J(fl - = 0 (17.18)

be the variational principle, where R is the 5-curvature scalar. All that is given
about is that it is a scalar function of field variables and their covariant deriv-
atives. In addition, one must admit an explicit dependence of ^ on the coordinates
X". By extending the Noether methods to this more general situation, one can
derive an explicit expression for the source tensor in terms of jC and deriv-
atives of X with respect to the fields and to X". This tensor satisfies

= 0 (17.19)

five conservation laws which are shown to be the differential laws for conservation
of energy, momentum, and charge.

b) A number of authors, in particular Jordan [Jl], have studied an extension
of this formalism to the case where the right-hand side of Eq. 17.16 is replaced
by a scalar field. Bergmann informed me that he and Einstein also had worked
on this generalization [B3].

c) In the 1980s, particle physicists have taken up the study of field equations in
(4 + AO-dimensional manifolds, where '4’ refers to space- time and where the
extra X variables span a compact space-like X-dimensional domain which is sup-
posed to be so small as not to influence the usual physics in inadmissible ways.
Various values of N are being considered for the purpose of including non-Abe-
lian gauge fields. Some authors advocate dropping constraints of the type 17.2 and
17.3, hoping that the compactness in the additional dimensions will result from
‘spontaneous compactification,’ a type of spontaneous symmetry breaking. The
future will tell what will come of these efforts. It seems fitting to close this section
by noting that, in 1981, a paper appeared with the title ‘Search for a Realistic
Kaluza- Klein Theory’ [WI].*

4. Two Options. Einstein spent much less energy on five-dimensional theories
than on a second category of unification attempts in which the four-dimensional
manifold is retained but endowed with a geometry more general than Riemann’s.

At this point the reader is offered two options.

Option 1. Take my word for it that these attempts have led nowhere thus far,
skip the next section, skim the two sections thereafter, and turn to the quantum
theory.

Option 2. If he is interested in what not only Einstein but also men like Edding-
ton and Schroedinger tried to do with these geometries, turn to the next section.

17d. Relativity and Post-Riemannian Differential Geometry

In his address on general relativity and differential geometry to the Einstein Cen-
tennial Symposium in Princeton [C3], the eminent mathematician Shiing-Shen

•In that paper, one will find references to other recent work in this direction.

UNIFIED FIELD THEORY

337

Chern made two statements which apply equally well to the present section: ‘It
is a strange feeling to speak on a topic of which I do not know half the title’, and
i soon saw the extreme difficulty of his (Einstein’s] problem and the difference
between mathematics and physics.’ Otherwise the overlap between this section and
Chern’s paper is minor. Chern deals mainly with modern global problems of dif-
ferential geometry, such as the theory of fiber bundles, subjects which Einstein
himself never wrote about or mentioned to me. My own aim is to give an account
of unified field theory in Einstein’s day, when the concerns were uniquely with
local differential geometry and when the now somewhat old-fashioned (and glob-
ally inadequate) general Ricci calculus was the main tool. Hence the main pur-
pose of this section: to give the main ideas of this calculus in one easy lesson.* A
simple way of doing this is first to consider a number of standard equations and
results of Riemannian geometry, found in any good textbook on general relativity,
and then to generalize from there.

In Riemannian geometry, we have a line element

ds^ = g^dx^'dx" (17.20)

invariant under all continuous point transformations x‘ a:'
connection related to the by

dx'' dx**

x''(x^) and a
(17.21)

For later purposes I distinguish two groups of properties.

The First Group

1 . A covariant vector field and a contravariant vector field transform as
dx'*^ dx'

from which one deduces the transformation of higher-rank tensors by the standard
rules.

2. Contraction of a tensor of rank n 2) yields a tensor of rank n — 2.

3. The covariant derivative of defined by

4, = ^ - It A (17.23)

is a tensor of the second rank. Covariant derivatives of higher covariant tensors
are deduced in the standard way. In particular, (2^x> defined by

*The interested reader is urged to read Schroedinger’s wonderful little book on this subject (S3|.

338

THE LATER JOURNEY

The Second Group

(17.28)

_ I dVg __

(17.29)

(17.30)

(17.31)

5. If

is a contravariant vector field v^ith a covarianl derivative defined by

dA"

(17.32)

then

fl = a

(17.33)

6. The quantity R defined by

H = g^R""

(17.34)

is a scalar.

(fl" - %rR), = 0

(17.35)

8. The equations

= 0

(17.36)

UNIFIED FIELD THEORY

337

In Riemannian geometry, we have a line element

ds^ = g^dx^'dx" (17.20)

invariant under all continuous point transformations x‘ a:'
connection related to the by

dx'' dx**

x''(x^) and a
(17.21)

For later purposes I distinguish two groups of properties.

The First Group

1 . A covariant vector field and a contravariant vector field transform as
dx'*^ dx'

from which one deduces the transformation of higher-rank tensors by the standard
rules.

2. Contraction of a tensor of rank n 2) yields a tensor of rank n — 2.

3. The covariant derivative of defined by

4, = ^ - It A (17.23)

is a tensor of the second rank. Covariant derivatives of higher covariant tensors
are deduced in the standard way. In particular, (2^x> defined by

*The interested reader is urged to read Schroedinger’s wonderful little book on this subject (S3|.

340

THE LATER JOURNEY

consequence of the advent of general relativity, as is seen from persistent reference
to that theory in all papers on connections which appeared in the following years,
by authors like Weyl, Levi-Civita, Schouten, Struik, and especially Elie Cartan,
who introduced torsion in 1922 [C4], and whose memoir ‘Sur les Varietes a Con-
nexion Affine et la theorie de la Relativite Generalisee’ [G5] is one of the papers
which led to the modern theory of fiber bundles [C3]. Thus Einstein’s labors had
a major impact on mathematics.

The first book on connections, Schouten’s Der Ricci- Kalkul [S4], published in
1924, lists a large number of connections distinguished (see [S4], p. 75) by the
relative properties of and F^, the symmetry properties of F^, and the prop-
erties of It will come as a relief to the reader that for all unified field theories
to be mentioned below, Eq. 17.33 does hold. This leads to considerable simplifi-
cations since then, and only then, product rules of the kind

= A\By + A^By, (17.38)

hold true. Important note: the orders of indices in Eqs. 17.23 and 17.32 are
matched in such a way that Eq. 17.38 is also true for nonsymmetric connections.

Let us consider the Weyl theory of 1918 [W2) as an example of this formalism.
This theory is based on Eq. 17.33, on a symmetric (also called affine) connection,
and on a symmetric fundamental tensor g^. However, does not vanish.
Instead:

(£; + g. - gJl - = 0 (17.39)

(which reduces to = 0 for 0^ = 0). 0^ is a 4-vector. This equation is invar-
iant under

(17.40)

F';:, = IX (17.42)

where X is an arbitrary function of x". Equations 17.40-17.42 are compatible
since Eq. 17.39 implies that

It = r*i + - gM (17.43)

where F*J, is the Riemannian expression given by the right-hand side of Eq.
17.21. Weyl’s group is the produa of the point transformation group and the
group of \ transformations specified by Eqs. 17.40 and 17.41. The are
unchanged by X transformations, so that the thing ds^ = g^dx^dx^'-^Xds^ . If we
dare to think of the thing ds as a length, then length is regauged (in the same
sense the word is used for railroad tracks), whence the expression gauge transfor-
mations, which made its entry into physics in this unphysical way. The quantities
and defined by

UNIFIED FIELD THEORY

341

dx'' dx*"

(17.44)

are both gauge-invariant tensors. So, therefore, is (which is not symmetric
now); R is a. scalar but is not gauge invariant: R' =\~^R, since = X“’^.

It is obvious what Weyl was after: is to be the electromagnetic field. In

addition, he could show that his group leads automatically to the five conservation
laws for energy, momentum, and charge. His is not a unified theory if one
demands that there be a unique underlying Lagrangian L that forces the validity
of the gravitational and electromagnetic field equations, since to any L one can
add an arbitrary multiple of the gauge-invariant scalar SF^F^\/g ctx. For a
detailed discussion and critique of this theory, see books by Pauli [PI] and by
Bergmann [Blj.

When Weyl finished this work, he sent a copy to Einstein and asked him to
submit it to the Prussian Academy [W3]. Einstein replied, ‘Your ideas show a
wonderful cohesion. Apart from the agreement with reality, it is at any rate a
grandiose achievement of the mind’ [E31]. Einstein was of course critical of the
fact that the line element was no longer invariant. The lengths of rods and the
readings of clocks would come to depend on their prehistory [E32], in conflict with
the fact that all hydrogen atoms have the same spectrum irrespective of their
provenance. He nevertheless saw to the publication of Weyl’s paper, but added a
note in which he expressed his reservations [E33].* Weyl’s response was not con-
vincing. Some months later, he wrote to Einstein, ‘[Your criticism] very much
disturbs me, of course, since experience has shown that one can rely on your intu-
ition’ [W4].

This theory did not live long. But local gauge transformations survived, though
not in the original meaning of regauging lengths and times. In the late 1920s,
Weyl introduced the modern version of these transformations: local phase trans-
formations of matter wave functions. This new concept, suitably amplified, has
become one of the most powerful tools in theoretical physics.

17e. The Later Journey: a Scientific Chronology

The last p)eriod of Einstein’s scientific activities was dominated throughout by
unified field theory. Nor was quantum theory ever absent from his mind. In all
those thirty years, he was as clear about his aims as he was in the dark about the
methods by which to achieve them. On his later scientific journey he was like a
traveler who is often compelled to make many changes in his mode of transpor-
tation in order to reach his port of destination. He never arrived.

The most striking characteristics of his way of working in those years are not
all that diflferent from what they had been before: devotion to the voyage, enthu-

*In 1921, Einstein wrote a not very interesting note in which he explored, in the spirit of Weyl, a
relativity theory in which only g^dx^dx" * 0 is invariant [E34).

342

THE LATER JOURNEY

siasm, and an ability to drop without pain, regrets, or afterthought, one strategy
and to start almost without pause on another one. For twenty years, he tried the
five-dimensional way about once every five years. In between as well as thereafter
he sought to reach his goal by means of four-dimensional connections, now of one
kind, then of another. He would also spend time on problems in general relativity
(as was already discussed in Chapter 15) or ponder the foundations of quantum
theory (as will be discussed in Chapter 25).

Returning to unified field theory, I have chosen the device of a scientific chro-
nology to convey how constant was his purpose, how manifold his methods, and
how futile his efforts. The reader will find other entries (that aim to round off a
survey of the period) interspaced with the items on unification. The entries dealing
with the five-dimensional approach, already discussed in Section 17b, are marked
with a f . Before I start with the chronology, I should stress that Einstein had three
distinct motives for studying generalizations of general relativity. First, he wanted
to join gravity with electromagnetism. Second, he had been unsuccessful in obtain-
ing singularity-free solutions of the source-free general relativistic field equations
which could represent particles; he hoped to have better luck with more general
theories. Third, he hoped that such theories might be of help in understanding the
quantum theory (see Chapter 26).

1922. \ A study with Grommer on singularity-free solutions of the Kaluza
equations.

1923. Four short papers [E35, E36, E37, E38) on Eddington’s program for

a unified field theory. In 1921 Eddington had proposed a theory inspired by
Weyl’s work [E39). As we just saw, Weyl had introduced a connection and a
fundamental tensor, both symmetric, as primary objects. In Eddington’s proposal
only a symmetric is primary; a symmetric fundamental tensor enters through
a back door. A theory of this kind contains a Ricci tensor that is not symmetric
(even though the connection is symmetric). Put

= R^^^ + (17.45)

where the first (second) term is the symmetric (antisymmetric) part. Not only is
antisymmetric, it is a curl: according to Eq. 17.27

- * ( 1 ^ - *) <"■“>

(recall that R]^^ = 0 in the Riemannian case because of Eq. 17.29). Eddington
therefore suggested that R]j^ play the role of electromagnetic field.

Note further that

R^dxf'dx' = ^ R^l^^dx'^dx' (17.47)

A A

is a scalar, where X is some constant. Define by

(17.48)

UNIFIED FIELD THEORY

341

dx'' dx*"

(17.44)

are both gauge-invariant tensors. So, therefore, is (which is not symmetric
now); R is a. scalar but is not gauge invariant: R' =\~^R, since = X“’^.

It is obvious what Weyl was after: is to be the electromagnetic field. In

17e. The Later Journey: a Scientific Chronology

The most striking characteristics of his way of working in those years are not
all that diflferent from what they had been before: devotion to the voyage, enthu-

*In 1921, Einstein wrote a not very interesting note in which he explored, in the spirit of Weyl, a
relativity theory in which only g^dx^dx" * 0 is invariant [E34).

344

THE LATER JOURNEY

in this new version. Thus there are eighty fundamental fields, all of which are to
be varied independently in his variational principle

= ^ ( 17 . 50 )

where is once again the Ricci tensor (still a tensor, as was noted earlier).
Equation 17.50 looks, of course, very much like the variational principle in gen-
eral relativity. Indeed, Eq. 17.21 is recovered in the symmetric limit (not surpris-
ing since in that case the procedure reduces to the Palatini method [PI]). In the
general case, relations between and can be obtained only up to the intro-
duction of an arbitrary 4-vector.

Einstein attempted to identify the symmetric part of with gravitation, the
antisymmetric part 0^ with the electromagnetic field. However, 0^ is in general
not a curl. The closest he could come to the first set of Maxwell equations was to
show that in the weak-field limit

dxa vdx" dx^ dx* J

(17.51)

There the paper ends. Einstein himself realized soon after the publication of
this work that the results were not impressive. He expressed this in three letters
to Ehrenfest. In the first one, he wrote, ‘I have once again a theory of gravitation -
electricity; very beautiful but dubious’ [E45). In the second one, ‘This summer I
wrote a very beguiling paper about gravitation -electricity ... but now I doubt
again very much whether it is true’ [E46]. Two days later, ‘My work of last
summer is no good’ [E47|. In a paper written in 1927 he remarked, 'As a result
of numerous failures, I have now arrived at the conviction that this road [Weyl

Eddington — *• Einstein] does not bring us closer to the truth'

[Remark. Einstein’s work was done independently of Cartan, who was the first
to introduce nonsymmetric connections (the antisymmetric parts of the Pj, are now
commonly known as Cartan torsion coefficients). There is considerable interest by
general relativists in theories of this kind, called Einstein-Cartan theories [H3|.
Their main purpose is to link torsion to spin. This development has, of course,
nothing to do with unification, nor was Einstein ever active in this direction].

1927. \ Einstein returns to the Kaluza theory. His improved treatment turns
out to be identical with the work of Klein, In January 1928 he writes to Ehrenfest
that this is the right way to make progress. ‘Long live the fifth dimension’ [E49].
Half a year later, he was back at the connections.

1928. All attempts at unification mentioned thus far have in common that one
could imagine or hope for standard general relativity to reappear somehow,
embedded in a wider framework. Einstein’s next try is particularly unusual, since
the most essential feature of the ‘old’ theory is lost from the very outset: the exis-
tence of a nonvanishing curvature tensor expressed in terms of the connection by
Eq. 17.26.

It began with a purely mathematical paper [E50], a rarity in Einstein’s oeuvre,
in which he invented distant parallelism (also called absolute parallelism or tele-

UNIFIED FIELD THEORY

345

parallelism). Transcribed in the formalism of the previous section, this geometry
looks as follows. Consider a contravariant Vierbein field, a set of four orthonormal
vectors /ij, a = 1,2, 3, 4; a numbers the vectors, if their components. Imagine that
it is possible for this Vierbein as a whole to stay parallel to itself upon arbitrary
displacement, that is, h^j, = 0 for each a, or, in longhand,

dh^

^ = 0 (17.52)

for each a. If this is possible, then one can evidently define the notion of a straight
line (not to be confused with a geodesic) and of parallel lines. Let be the nor-
malized minor of the determinant of the h[. Then (summation over a is under-
stood)

h,ah: = K (17.53)

The notation is proper since is a covariant vector field. From Eqs. 17.52 and
17.53 we can solve for the connection:

a = - (17.54)

from which one easily deduces that

= 0 (17.55)

Thus distant parallelism is possible only for a special kind of nonsymmetric con-
nection in which the sixty-four I^ are expressible in terms of sixteen fields and
in which the curvature tensor vanishes. When Einstein discovered this, he did not
know that Cartan was already aware of this geometry.*

All these properties are independent of any metric. However, one can define an
invariant line element ds^ = g^dx^'dx" with

= h^Ao (17.56)

The resulting geometry, a Riemannian geometry with torsion, was the one Ein-
stein independently invented. A week later he proposed to use this formalism for
unification [E51a]. Of course, he had to do something out of the ordinary since he
had no Ricci tensor. However, he had found a new tensor to play with, defined
by

< = n, - r*.^, (17.57)

where r*j^ is defined by the rhs of Eq. 17.21 (it follows from Eq. 17.25 that
is a true tensor). He hoped to be able to identify with the electromagnetic
potential, but even for weak fields he was unable to find equations in which grav-

*See a letter from Cartan to Einstein (C6] (in which Cartan also notes that he had alluded to this
geometry in a discussion with Einstein in 1922) reproduced in the published Cartan- Einstein cor-
respondence [ D 1 ] . In 1929, Einstein wrote a review of this theory |E51] to which, at his suggestion,
Cartan added a historical note (C7j.

346

THE LATER JOURNEY

itational and electromagnetic fields are separated, an old difficulty. There the mat-
ter rested for several months, when odd things began to happen.

On November 4, 1928, The New York Times carried a story under the heading
‘Einstein on verge of great discovery; resents intrusion,’ followed on November 14
by an item ‘Einstein reticent on new work; will not “count unlaid eggs.” ’ Einstein
himself cannot have been the direct source of these rumors, also referred to in
Nature [N2], since these stories erroneously mentioned that he was preparing a
book on a new theory. In actual fact, he was at work on a short paper dealing
with a new version of unification by means of distant parallelism. On January 1 1 ,
1929, he issued a brief statement to the press stating that ‘the purpose of this work
is to write the laws of the fields of gravitation and electromagnetism under a
unified view point’ and referred to a six-page paper he had submitted the day
before [E52]. A newspaper reporter added the following deathless prose to Ein-
stein’s statement. ‘The length of this work — written at the rate of half a page a
year — is considered prodigious when it is considered that the original presentation
of his theory of relativity [on November 25, 1915] filled only three pages’ [N3].
‘Einstein is amazed at stir over theory. Holds 100 journalists at bay for a week,’
the papers reported a week later, adding that he did not care for this publicity at
all. But Einstein’s name was magic, and shortly thereafter he heard from Edding-
ton. ‘You may be amused to hear that one of our great department stores in Lon-
don (Selfridges) has posted on its window your paper (the six pages pasted up
side by side) so that passers-by can read it all through. Large crowds gatner
around to read it!’ [E53]. The ‘Special Features’ section of the Sunday edition of
The New York Times of February 3, 1929, carried a full-page article by Einstein
on the early developments in relativity, ending with remarks on distant parallelism
in which his no doubt bewildered readers were told that in this geometry paral-
lelograms do not close. ♦ So great was the public clamor that he went into hiding
for a while [N4].

It was much ado about very little. Einstein had found that

= ri, - n, (17.58)

is a third-rank tensor (as follows at once from Eq. 17.25) and now identified B\,
with the electromagnetic potentials. He did propose a set of field equations, but
added that ‘further investigations will have to show whether [these] will give an
interpretation of the physical qualities of space’ [E52]. His attempt to derive his
equations from a variational principle [E54] had to be withdrawn [E55]. Never-
theless, in 1929 he had ‘hardly any doubt’ that he was on the right track [E56],
He lectured on his theory in England [E57) and in France [E58] and wrote about
distant parallelism in scmipopular articles [E59, E60, E61, E62]. One of his co-
workers wrote of ‘the theory which Einstein advocates with great seriousness and
emphasis since a few years’ [Llj.

^Consider four itraight line* Li,..., L4. Let Li and 1 ^ be parallel. Let L3 intersect L| and Lj.
Through a point of L, not on draw L4 parallel to Lj. Then L4 and L2 need not intersect.

UNIFIED FIELD THEORY

347

Einstein’s colleagues were not impressed. Eddington [E63] and Weyl [W6]
were critical (for other views, see [L2] and [W7]). Pauli demanded to know what
had become of the perihelion of Mercury, the bending of light, and the conser-
vation laws of energy -momentum [P7]. Einstein had no good answer to these
questions [E64], but that did not seem to overly concern him, since one week later
he wrote to Walther Mayer, ‘Nearly all the colleagues react sourly to the theory
because it puts again in doubt the earlier general relativity’ [E65]. Pauli on the
other hand, was scathing in a review of this subject written in 1932: ‘[Einstein’s]
never-failing inventiveness as well as his tenacious energy in the pursuit of [uni-
fication] guarantees us in recent years, on the average, one theory per annum

It is psychologically interesting that for some time the current theory is usually
considered by its author to be the “definitive solution” ’ [P8].

Einstein held out awhile longer. In 1930 he worked on special solutions of his
equations [E66] and began a search for identities which should play a role (with-
out the benefit of a variational principle) similar to the role of the Bianchi ident-
ities in the usual theory [E67]. One more paper on identities followed in 1931
[E68]. Then he gave up. In a note to Science ^ he remarked that this was the wrong
direction [E26] (for his later views on distant parallelism, see [S5]). Shortly there-
after, he wrote to Pauli, ‘Sie haben also recht gehabt, Sie Spitzbube,’ You were
right after all, you rascal [E69]. Half a year after his last paper on distant par-
allelism he was back at the five dimensions.

1931-2\. Work on the Einstein-Mayer theory of local 5-vector spaces.

1933. The Spencer lecture, referred to in Chapter 16, in which Einstein
expressed his conviction that pure mathematical construction enables us to dis-
cover the physical concepts and the laws connecting them [E70]. I cannot believe
that this was the same Einstein who had warned Felix Klein in 1917 against
overrating the value of formal points of view ‘which fail almost always as heuristic
aids’ [E2].

1935. Work with Rosen and Podolsky on the foundations of the quantum the-
ory.

1935-8. Work on conventional general relativity — alone on gravitational
lenses, with Rosen on gravitational waves and on two-sheeted spaces, and with
Infeld and Hoffmann on the problem of motion.

1938-41\. Last explorations of the Kaluza-Klein theory, with Bergmann and
Bargmann.

The early 1940s. In this period, Einstein became interested in the question of
whether the most fundamental equations of physics might have a structure other
than the familiar partial differential equations. His work with Bargmann on
bivector fields [E71, E72]* must be considered an exploration of this kind. It was
not meant to necessarily have anything to do with physics. Other such investiga-
tions in collaboration with Ernst Straus [S6] remained unpublished.**

*Scc Chapter 29.

**1 am grateful to Professors Bargmann and Straus for discussions about this period.

348

THE LATER JOURNEY

From 1945 until the end. The final Einstein equations. Einstein, now in his
mid-sixties, spent the remaining years of his life working on an old love of his,
dating back to 1925; a theory with a fundamental tensor and a connection which
are both nonsymmetric. Initially, he proposed [E73] that these quantities be com-
plex but hermitian (see also [E74]). However, without essential changes one can
revert to the real nonsymmetric formulation (as he did in later papers) since the
group remains the of real point transformations which do not mix real and
imaginary parts of the ^’s and the Fs. The two mentioned papers were authored
by him alone, as were two other contributions, one on Bianchi identities [E75] and
one on the place of discrete masses and charges in this theory [E761. The major
part of this work was done in collaboration, however, first with Straus [E77] (see
also [S7]), then with Bruria Kaufman [E78, E79], his last assistant. Shortly after
Einstein’s death, Kaufman gave a summary of this work at the Bern conference
[K6]. In this very clear and useful report is also found a comparison with the near-
simultaneous work on nonsymmetric connections by Schroedinger [S3] and by
Behram Kursunoglu [K7].*

As the large number of papers intimates, Einstein’s efforts to master the non-
symmetric case were far more elaborate during the last decade of his life than they
had been in 1925. At the technical level, the plan of attack was modified several
times. My brief review of this work starts once again from the general formalism
developed in the previous section, where it was noted that the properties of the
third-rank tensor defined by Eq. 17.24 are important for a detailed specifi-
cation of a connection. That was Einstein’s new point of departure. In 1945 he
postulated the relation

From the transformation properties of the (which, whether symmetric or not,
transform in the good old way; see Eq. 17.22 and the comment following it) and
of the rj, (Eq. 17.25), it follows that Eq. 17.59 is a covariant postulate. Further-
more, now that we are cured of distant parallelism, we once again have nontrivial
curvature and Ricci tensors given by Eqs. 17.26 and 17.27, respectively. In addi-
tion r^, defined by

r, = - TV) (17.60)

plays a role; is a 4-vector (use Eq. 17.25) which vanishes identically in the
Riemann case. The plan was to construct from these ingredients a theory such
that (as in 1925) the symmetric and antisymmetric parts of would correspond
to the metric and the electromagnetic field, respectively, and to see if the theory

♦Schroedinger treats only the connection as primary and introduces the fundamental tensor via the
cosmological-term device of Eddington. Kursunoglu’s theory is more like Einstein’s but contains one
additional parameter. For further references to nonsymmetric connections, sec [L3, S8, and Tl).

UNIFIED FIELD THEORY

349

could have particle-like solutions. This plan had failed in 1925. It failed again this
time. I summarize the findings.

a) The order of the indices of the Fs in Eq. 17.59 is important and was chosen

such that Eq. 17.59 shall remain valid if and Einstein and

Kaufman extended this rule to the nontrivial constraint that all final equations of
the theory shall be invariant under this transposition operation. is not invar-
iant under transposition; the final equations are. Note that the indices in Eq. 17.26
have been written in such an order that they conform to the choice made by Ein-
stein and his co-workers.)

b) In the symmetric case, Eq. 17.21 is a consequence of Eq. 17.59. This is not
true here.

c) g^ is a reducible representation of the group; the symmetric and antisym-
metric parts do not mix under G^. Therefore, the unification of gravitation and
electromagnetism is formally arbitrary. ‘For this reason, Pauli sticks out his
tongue when I tell him about [the theory]’ [E80]. An attempt to overcome this
objection by extending G 4 was not successful.*

d) As in 1925, the variational principle is given by Eq. 17.50. After lengthy
calculations, Einstein and his collaborators found the field equations to be

= 0 (17.61)

= 0

+ Ry^ -f R,x^ = 0

the first of which is identical with Eq. 17.59, which therefore ceases to be a pos-
tulate and becomes a consequence of the variational principle. The R^ and R^
are the respective symmetric and antisymmetric parts of R^. ~

These are Einstein’s final field equations.

In his own words (written in December 1954), ‘In my opinion, the theory pre-
sented here is the logically simplest relativistic field theory which is at all possible.
But this does not mean that nature might not obey a more complex field theory’
[E81]. It must be said, however, that, once again, logical simplicity failed not only
to produce something new in physics but also to reproduce something old. Just as
in 1925 (see Eq. 17.51), he could not even derive the electromagnetic field equa-
tions in the weak-field approximation (see [K 6 ], p. 234). It is a puzzle to me why
he did not heed this result of his, obtained thirty years earlier. Indeed, none of
Einstein’s attempts to generalize the Riemannian connection ever produced the
free-field Maxwell equations.

In 1949 Einstein wrote a new appendix for the third edition of his The Mean-
ing of Relativity in which he described his most recent work on unification. It was

^The idea was to demand invariance under PJ, + 6' d\/dx\ where X is an arbitrary scalar
function. This forces to be nonsymmetric and at the same time leaves invariant. However,
the final equation F„ * 0 is not invariant under this new transformation.

350

THE LATER JOURNEY

none of his doing* that a page of his manuscript appeared on the front page of
The New York Times under the heading ‘New Einstein theory gives a master key
to the universe’ [N5]. He refused to see reporters and asked Helen Dukas to relay
this message to them: ‘Come back and sec me in twenty years’ [N6]. Three years
later, Einstein’s science made the front page one last time. He had rewritten his
appendix for the fourth edition, and his equations (Eq. 17.61) appeared in the
Times under the heading ‘Einstein offers new theory to unify law of the cosmos’
(N71.

‘It is a wonderful feeling to recognize the unifying features of a complex of
phenomena which present themselves as quite unconnected to the direct experi-
ence of the senses’ [E82]. So Einstein had written to Grossmann, in 1901, after
completing his very first paper on statistical physics. This wonderful feeling sus-
tained him through a life devoted to science. It kept him engaged, forever lucid.
Nor did he ever lose his sense of scientific balance. The final words on unified
field theory should be his own:

The skeptic will say, ‘It may well be true that this system of equations is rea-
sonable from a logical standpoint, but this docs not prove that it corresponds to
nature.’ You arc right, dear skeptic. Experience alone can decide on truth.
[E831

17f. A Postscript to Unification, a Prelude to Quantiun Theory

The unification of forces is now widely recognized to be one of the most important
tasks in physics, perhaps the most important one. It would have made little dif-
ference to Einstein if he had taken note of the fact — as he could have — that there
are other forces in nature than gravitation and electromagnetism. The time for
unification had not yet come.

Pauli, familiar with and at one time active in unified field theory, used to play
Mephisto to Einstein’s Faust. He was fond of saying that men shall not join what
God has tom asunder, a remark which, as it turned out, was more witty than
wise. In the 1970s, unification achieved its first indubitable successes. Electro-
magnetism has been joined not to gravitation but to the weak interactions.
Attempts to join these two forces to the strong interactions have led to promising
but not as yet conclusive schemes known as grand unified theories.

The unification of gravitation with the other known fundamental forces remains
now as much of a dream as it was in Einstein’s day. It is just barely possible that
supergravity** may have something to do with this supreme union and may end
our ignorance, so often justly lamented by Einstein, about T^^.

•The Princeton University Press displayed the manuscript at an AAAS meeting in New York City.
••For an authoritative account of the status of supergravity, see [Zl].

UNIFIED FIELD THEORY

349

could have particle-like solutions. This plan had failed in 1925. It failed again this
time. I summarize the findings.

a) The order of the indices of the Fs in Eq. 17.59 is important and was chosen

such that Eq. 17.59 shall remain valid if and Einstein and

b) In the symmetric case, Eq. 17.21 is a consequence of Eq. 17.59. This is not
true here.

d) As in 1925, the variational principle is given by Eq. 17.50. After lengthy
calculations, Einstein and his collaborators found the field equations to be

= 0 (17.61)

= 0

+ Ry^ -f R,x^ = 0

These are Einstein’s final field equations.

In 1949 Einstein wrote a new appendix for the third edition of his The Mean-
ing of Relativity in which he described his most recent work on unification. It was

352

THE LATER JOURNEY

E19. , PAIV, 1927, p. 23.

E20. , PAIV, 1927, p. 26.

E21. , letter to P. Ehrenfest, August 23, 1926.

E22. , letter to P. Ehrenfest, September 3, 1926.

E23. , letter to H. A. Lorentz, February 16, 1927.

E24. and W. Mayer, 1931, p. 541.

E25. , letter to P. Ehrenfest, September 17, 1931.

E26. , Science 74, 438 (1931).

E27. and W. Mayer, PAW, 1932, p. 130.

E28. , letter to W. Pauli, January 22, 1932

E29. and P. Bergmann, Ann. Math. 39, 683 (1938).

E30. , V. Bargmann, and P. Bergmann, T. von Kdrmdn Anniversary Volume, p.

212. California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, 1941.

E31. , letter to H. Weyl, April 8, 1918.

E32. , letter to H. Weyl, April 15, 1918.

E33. , PAW, 1918, p. 478.

E34. , PAW, 1921, p. 261.

E35. , PAW, 1923, p. 32.

E36. , PAW, 1923, p. 76.

E37. , PAW, 1923, p. 137.

E38. , Nature 112, 448 (1923).

E39. A. S. Eddington, Proc. Roy. Soc. 99, 104 (1921).

E40. A. Einstein, letter to H. Weyl, June 6, 1922.

E41. , letter to H. Weyl, May 23, 1923.

E42. , letter to H. Weyl, May 26, 1923.

E43. , appendix to A. S. Eddington, Relativitdtstheorie. Springer, Berlin, 1925.

E44. , PAW, 1925, p. 414.

E45. , letter to P. Ehrenfest, August 18, 1925.

E46. , letter to P. Ehrenfest, September 18, 1925.

E47. , letter to P. Ehrenfest, September 20, 1925.

E48. , Math Ann. 97, 99 (1927).

E49. , letter to P. Ehrenfest, January 21, 1928.

E50. , PAW, 1928, p. 217.

E51. , Math Ann. 102, 685 (1929).

E51a. , PAW, 1928, p. 224.

E52. , PAW, 1929, p. 2.

E53. A. S. Eddington, letter to A. Einstein, February 11, 1929.

E54. A. Einstein, PAW, 1929, p. 156.

E55. , PAW, 1930, p. 18.

E56. Festschrift Prof. Dr. A. Stodola p. 126. Fiissli, Zurich, 1929.

E57. , Science 71, 608 (1930).

E58. , Ann. Inst. H. Poincare 1, 1 (1930).

E59. , Die Karaite, 1930, pp. 486-7.

E60. , Forum Philosophicum 1, 173 (1930).

E61. , The Yale University Library Gazette 6, 3 (1930).

E62. , Die Quelle 82, 440 (1932).

E63. A. S. Eddington, Nature 123, 280 (1929).

UNIFIED FIELD THEORY

353

E64. A. Einstein, letter to W. Pauli, December 24, 1929.

E65. , letter to W. Mayer, January 1, 1930.

E66. and W. Mayer, PAW, 1930, p. 110.

E67. , PAW, 1930, p. 401.

E68. and W. Mayer, PAW, 1931, p. 257.

E69. , letter to W. Pauli, January 22, 1932.

E70. , On the Method of Theoretical Physics. Oxford University Press, Oxford,

1933.

E71. and V. Bargmann, Ann. Math. 45, 1 (1944).

E72. , Ann. Math. 45, 15 (1944).

E73. , Ann Math. 46, 578 (1945)

E74. , Rev. Mod. Phys. 20, 35 (1948).

E75 , Can. J. Math. 2, 120 (1950).

E76. , Phys. Rev. 89, 321 (1953).

E77. and E Straus, Ann. Math 47, 731 (1946)

E78. and B. Kaufman, Ann. Math. 59, 230 (1954)

E79. and , Ann Math. 62, 128 (1955).

E80. , letter to E Schroedinger, January 22, 1946.

E81. , The Meaning of Relativity (5th edn ), p 163. Princeton University Press,

Princeton, N.J. 1955.

E82. , letter to M. Grossmann, April 14, 1901.

E83 , Sci. Am., April 1950, p 17

FI. V. Fock, Z Phys 39, 226 (1926).

Gl. F Gonseth and G. Juret, C. R. Ac. Sci Pans 185, 448, 535 (1927)

HI W. Heisenberg, Z. Phys 33, 879 (1926)

H2 G Hessenberg, Math Ann 78, 187 (1916)

H3. F. Hehl, P. von der Heyde, G D Kerlick, and J. Nester, Rev. Mod. Phys. 48, 393
(1976).

J1 P. Jordan, Schwerkraft und Weltall (2nd edn.). Vievveg, Braunschweig, 1955.

Kl. F. Klein, Gesammelte Mathematische Abhandungen, Vol. 1, p. 533. Springer,
Berlin, 1921.

K2. T. Kaluza, PAW, 1921, p. 966.

K3 O. Klein, Z Phys. 37, 895 (1926).

K4. , 118, 516 (1926).

K5. , Helv. Phys. Acta, Suppl IV, 58 (1956).

K6 B. Kaufman, Helv. Phys. Acta, Suppl. IV, 227 (1956).

K7. B. Kursunoglu, Phys. Rev. 88, 1369 (1952).

Ll C. Lanczos, Erg. Ex. Naturw. 10, 97 (1931).

L2. T. Levi-Civita, Nature 123, 678 (1929).

L3. A. Lichnerowicz, Theories Relatwistes de la Gravitation et de PElectromagnetisme,
Chap. 4. Masson, Paris, 1955.

Ml. H. Mandel, Z. Phys. 39, 136 (1926).

M2. H. Mandel. Z. Phys. 45, 285 (1927).

Nl. G. Nordstrom, Phys. Zeitschr. 15, 504 (1914).

N2. Nature, 123, 174 (1929).

N3. New York January 12, 1929.

N4. New York Times, February 4, 1929,

354

THE LATER JOURNEY

N5. New York Times, December 27, 1949.

N6. New York Times, December 28, 1949.

N7. New York Times, March 30, 1953.

PI. W. Pauli, Theory of Relativity (G. Field, Tran.), Supplementary Note 23. Perga-
mon Press, London, 1958.

P2. and J. Solomon, /. Phys. Radium 3, 452, 582 (1932).

P3. , Collected Scientific papers (R. Kronig and V. Weisskopf, Eds.), Vol. 2, p.

461. Interscience, New York, 1964.

P4. , AdP 18, 305, 337 (1933); Collected Papers, Vol. 2, p. 630. Interscience, New

York, 1964.

P5. A. Pais, Physica 8, 1137 (1941).

P6. W. Pauli, letter to A. S. Eddington, September 20, 1923. Reprinted in Scientific
Correspondence, p. 115. Springer, New York, 1979.

P7. , letter to A. Einstein, December 19, 1929. reprinted in Scientific Correspon-

dence, Vol. 1, p. 526.

P8. , Naturw. 20, 186 (1932); Collected Papers, Vol. 2. p. 1399.

Rl. E. Rutherford, Proc. Roy. Soc. A90, addendum (1914).

R2. , Scientia 16, 337 (1914).

R3. , Phil. Mag. 27, 488 (1914).

R4. , Phil. Mag. 37, 537 (1919).

51. E. Schroedinger, AdP 7^, 361 (1926).

52. E. Schmutzer, Relativistische Physik, Chap. 10. Teubner, Leibzig, 1968.

53. E. Schroedinger, Space-Time Structure. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
1950.

54. J. Schouten, Der Ricci- Kalkiil. Springer, Berlin, 1924.

55. H. Salzer, Arch. Hist. Ex. Sci. 12, 88 (1973).

56. E. Straus in Some Strangeness in the Proportion (H. Woolf, Ed.), p. 483. Addison-
Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1980.

57. E. Straus, Rev. Mod. Phys. 21, 414 (1949).

58. J. Schouten, Ricci- Calculus (2nd edn.). Chap. 3, Sec. 11. Springer, Berlin, 1954.
Tl. M. A. Tonnelat, Einstein's Unified Field Theory. Gordon and Breach, New York,

1966.

Wl. E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B186, 412 (1981).

W2. H. Weyl, 1918, p. 465.

W3. , letter to A. Einstein, April 5, 1918.

W4. , letter to A. Einstein, December 10, 1918.

W5. , Raum, Zeit, Materie (5th edn.), Appendix 4. Springer, Berlin, 1923.

W6. , Z. Phys. 56, 330 (1929).

W7. N. Wiener and M. Vallarta, Nature 123, 317 (1929).

Zl. B. Zumino, Einstein Symposium Berlin, p. 114. Springer, New York, 1979.

THE QUANTUM THEORY

Apart, adv., 4. Away from others in action or function; separately,
independently, individually. . . .

Oxford English Dictionary

Preliminaries

18a. An Outline of Einstein’s Contributions

In 1948, I undertook to put together the Festschrift in honor of Einstein’s seven-
tieth birthday [Rl]. In a letter to prospective contributors, I wrote, ‘It is planned
that the first article of the volume shall be of a more personal nature and, written
by a representative colleague, shall pay homage to Einstein on behalf of all con-
tributors’ [PI]. I then asked Robert Andrews Millikan to do the honors, as the
senior contributor.* He accepted and his article is written in his customary forth-
right manner. On that occasion, he expressed himself as follows on the equation
E - h\f — Piov the photoelectric effect. ‘I spent ten years of my life testing that
1905 equation of Einstein’s and contrary to all my expectations, I was compelled
in 1915 to assert its unambiguous verification in spite of its unreasonableness,
since it seemed to violate everything we knew about the interference of light’ [Ml ].

Physics had progressed, and Millikan had mellowed since the days of his 1915
paper on the photoeffect, as is evidenced by what he wrote at that earlier time:
‘Einstein’s photoelectric equation . . . appears in every case to predict exactly the
observed results. ... Yet the semicorpuscular theory by which Einstein arrived at
his equation seems at present wholly untenable’ [M2]; and in his next paper,
Millikan mentioned ‘the bold, not to say the reckless, hypothesis of an electro-
magnetic light corpuscle’ [M3]. Nor was Millikan at that time the only first-rate
physicist to hold such views, as will presently be recalled. Rather, the physics
community at large had received the light-quantum hypothesis with disbelief and
with skepticism bordering on derision. As one of the architects of the pre-1925
quantum theory, the “old” quantum theory, Einstein had quickly found both
enthusiastic and powerful support for one of his two major contributions to this
field: the quantum theory of specific heat. (There is no reason to believe that such
support satisfied any particular need in him.) By sharp contrast, from 1905 to
1923, he was a man apart in being the only one, or almost the only one, to take
the light-quantum seriously.

*It was decided later that L. de Broglie, M. von Laue, and P. Frank should also write articles of a
personal nature.

357

358

THE QUANTUM THEORY

The critical reaction to Einstein’s light-quantum hypothesis of 1905 is of great
importance for an understanding of the early developments in quantum physics.
It was also a reaction without parallel in Einstein’s scientific career. Deservedly,
his papers before 1905 had not attracted much attention. But his work on Brown-
ian motion drew inunediate and favorable response. The same is true for relativity.
Planck became an advocate of the special theory only months after its publication;
the younger generation took note as well. Lorentz, Hilbert, F. Klein, and others
had followed the evolution of his ideas on general relativity; after 1915 they and
others immediately started to work out its consequences. Attitudes to his work on
unified field theory were largely critical. Many regarded these efforts as untimely,
but few rejected the underlying idea out of hand. In regard to the quantum theory,
however, Einstein almost constantly stood apart, from 1905 until his death. Those
years cover two disparate periods, the first of which (1905-1923) I have just men-
tioned. During the second period, from 1926 until the end of his life, he was the
only one, or again nearly the only one, to maintain a profoundly skeptical attitude
toward quantum mechanics. I shall discuss Einstein’s position on quantum
mechanics in Chapter 25, but cannot refrain from stating at once that Einstein’s
skepticism should not be equated with a purely negative attitude. It is true that
he was forever critical of quantum mechanics, but at the same time he had his
own alternative program for a synthetic theory in which particles, fields, and
quantum phenomena all would find their place. Einstein pursued this program
from about 1920 (before the discovery of quantum mechanics!) until the end of
his life. Numerous discussions with him in his later years have helped me gain a
better understanding of his views.

But let me first return to the days of the old quantum theory. Einstein’s con-
tributions to it can be grouped under the following headings.

(a) The Light-Quantum. In 1900 Planck discovered the blackbody radiation
law without using light-quanta. In 1905 Einstein discovered light-quanta without
using Planck’s law. Chapter 19 is devoted to the light-quantum hypothesis. The
interplay between the ideas of Planck and Einstein is discussed. A brief history of
the photoelectric effect from 1887 to 1915 is given. This Chapter ends with a
detailed account of the reasons why the light-quantum paper drew such a negative
response.

(b) Specific Heats. Toward the end of the nineteenth century, there existed
grave conflicts between the data on specific heats and their interpretation in terms
of the equipartition theorem of classical statistical mechanics. In 1906 Einstein
completed the first paper on quantum effects in the solid state. This paper showed
the way out of these paradoxes and also played an important role in the final
formulation of the third law of thermodynamics. These topics are discussed in
Chapter 20,

(c) The Photon. The light-quantum as originally defined was a parcel of
energy. The concept of the photon as a particle with definite energy and momen-
tum emerged only gradually. Einstein himself did not discuss photon momentum

PRELIMINARIES

359

until 1917. Relativistic energy momentum conservation relations involving pho-
tons were not written down till 1923. Einstein’s role in these developments is dis-
cussed in Chapter 21, which begins with Einstein’s formulation in 1909 of the
particle-wave duality for the case of electromagnetic radiation and also contains
an account of his discovery of the A and B coefficients and of his earliest concern
with the breakdown of classical causality. The Chapter concludes with remarks
on the role of the Compton eflPect.

The reader may wonder why the man who discovered the relation E — hv for
light in 1905 and who propounded the special theory of relativity in that same
year would not have stated sooner the relation p = hv/c.\ shall comment on this
question in Section 25d.

(d) Einstein’s work on quantum statistics is treated in Chapter 23, which also
includes a discussion of Bose’s contribution.

(e) Einstein’s role as a key transitional figure in the discovery of wave
mechanics will be discussed in Chapter 24.

I shall continue the outline of Einstein’s contributions to the quantum theory
in Section 18c. First, however, I should like to take leave of our main character
for a brief while in order to comment on the singular role of the photon in the
history of the physics of particles and fields. In so doing, I shall interrupt the
historical sequence of events in order to make some comments from today’s van-
tage point.

18b. Particle Physics: The First Fifty Years

Let us leave aside the photon for a while and ask how physicists reacted to the
experimental discovery or the theoretical prediction (whichever came first) of other
new particles. No detailed references to the literature will be given, in keeping
with the brevity of my comments on this subject.

The discovery in 1897 of the first particle, the electron, was an unexpected
experimental development which brought to an end the ongoing debate about
whether cathode rays are molecular torrents or aetherial disturbances. The answer
came as a complete surprise; they are neither, but rather are a new form of matter.
There were some initial reactions of disbelief. J. J. Thomson once recalled the
comment of a colleague who was present at the first lecture Thomson gave on the
new discovery: ‘I [T.] was told long afterwards by a distinguished physicist who
had been present at my lecture that he thought I had been “pulling their leg” ’
[Tl]. Nevertheless, the existence of the electron was widely accepted within the
span of very few years. By 1 900 it had become clear that beta rays are electrons
as well. The discoveries of the free electron and of the Zeeman effect (in 1896)
combined made it evident that a universal atomic constituent had been discovered
and that the excitations of electrons in atoms were somehow the sources of atomic
spectra.

The discovery of the electron was a discovery at the outer experimental frontier.

360

THE QUANTUM THEORY

In the first instance, this finding led to the abandonment of the earlier qualitative
concept of the indivisibility of the atom, but it did not require, or at least not at
once, a modification of the established corpus of theoretical physics.

During the next fifty years, three other particles entered the scene in ways not
so dissimilar from the case of the electron, namely, via unexpected discoveries of
an experimental nature at the outer frontier. These are the proton (or, rather, the
nucleus), the neutron,* and — just half a century after the electron — the muon,
the first of the electron’s heavier brothers. As to the acceptance of these particles,
it took little time to realize that their coming was, in each instance, liberating.
Within two years after Rutherford’s nuclear model, Bohr was able to make the
first real theoretical predictions in atomic physics. Almost at once after the discov-
ery of the neutron, the first viable models of the nucleus were proposed, and
nuclear physics could start in earnest. The muon is still one of the strangest ani-
mals in the particle zoo, yet its discovery was liberating, too, since it made possible
an understanding of certain anomalies in the absorption of cosmic rays. (Prior to
the discovery of the muon, theorists had already speculated about the need for an
extra particle to explain these anomalies.)

To complete the particle list of the first half century, there are four more par-
ticles (it is too early to include the graviton) which have entered physics — but in
a different way: initially, they were theoretical proposals. The first neutrino was
proposed in order to save the law of energy conservation in beta radioactivity. The
first meson (now called the pion) was proposed as the conveyer of nuclear forces.
Both suggestions were ingenious, daring, innovative, and successful — but did not
demand a radical change of theory. Within months after the public unveiling of
the neutrino hypothesis, the first theory of the weak interactions, which is still
immensely useful, was proposed. The meson hypothesis immediately led to con-
siderable theoretical activity as well.

The neutrino hypothesis was generally assimilated long before this particle was
actually observed. The interval between the proposal and the first observation of
the neutrino is even longer than the corresponding interval for the photon. The
meson postulate found rapid experimental support from cosmic-ray data — or so
it seemed. More than a decade passed before it became clear that the bulk of these
observations actually involved muons instead of pions.

Then there was the positron, ‘a new kind of particle, unknown to experimental
physics, having the same mass and opposite charge to an electron’ [Dl]. This
panicle was proposed in 1931, after a period of about three years of considerable

*It is often said, and not without grounds, that the neutron was actually anticipated. In fact, twelve
years before its discovery, in one of his Bakerian lectures (1920) Rutherford spoke [R2] of ‘the idea
of the possible existence of an atom of mass one which has zero nuclear charge.’ Nor is there any
doubt that the neutron being in the air at the Cavendish was of profound importance to its discoverer,
James Chadwick [Cl]. Even so, not even a Rutherford could have guessed that his 1920 neutron
(then conjectured to be a tightly bound proton-electron system) was so essentially different from the
particle that would eventually go by that name.

PRELIMINARIES

361

controversy over the meaning of the negative energy solutions of the Dirac equa-
tion. During that period, one participant expressed fear for ‘a new crisis in quan-
tum physics’! W1 ]. The crisis was short-lived, however. The experimental discov-
ery of the positron in 1932 was a triumph for theoretical physics. The positron
theory belongs to the most important advances of the 1930s.

And then there was the photon, the first particle to be predicted theoretically.

Never, either in the first half-century or in the years thereafter, has the idea of
a new particle met for so long with such resistance as the photon. The light-quan-
tum hypothesis was considered somewhat of an aberration even by leading phys-
icists who otherwise held Einstein in the highest esteem. Its assimilation came
after a struggle more intense and prolonged than for any other particle ever pos-
tulated. Because never, to this day, has the proposal of any particle but the photon
led to the creation of a new inner frontier. The hypthesis seemed paradoxical:
light was known to consist of waves, hence it could not consist of particles. Yet
this paradox alone does not fully account for the resistance to Einstein’s hypth-
esis. We shall look more closely at the situation in Section 19f.

18c. The Quantum Theory: Lines of Influence

The skeleton diagram below is an attempt to reduce the history of the quantum
theory to its barest outlines. At the same time, this figure will serve as a guide to
the rest of this papr; in it X -♦ Y means ‘the work of X was instrumental to an
advance by Y.’ Arrows marked M and R indicate that the influence went via the
theory of matter and radiation, respctively.

If Planck, Einstein, and Bohr are the fathers of the quantum theory, then Gus-
tav Robert KirchhofT is its grandfather. Since he was the founder of optical spctra
analysis (in 1860, together with Robert Bunsen [Kl]), an arrow leads from him
and Bunsen to Johann Jakob Balmer, the inventor of the Balmer formula [Bl].
From Balmer we move to Bohr, the founder of atomic quantum dynamics.
Returning to KirchhofT as the discoverer of the universal character of blackbody
radiation [K2), we note that his influence goes via Wien to Planck (see further,
Section 19a).

The arrow from Wien to Planck refers to the latter’s formulation of his black-
body radiation law and the triangle Wien- Planck- Einstein to the mutual influ-
ences which led to the light-quantum hypthesis (Sections 19b-d).

The arrow from Bose to Einstein refers to Bose’s work on electromagnetic
radiation and its impact on Einstein’s contributions to the quantum statistics of a
material gas (Chapter 23, wherein Einstein’s influence on Dirac is also briefly
mentioned).

The triangle Einstein-de Broglie-Schroedinger has to do with the role of Ein-
stein as the transitional figure in the birth of wave mechanics, discussed in Chapter
24.

The h marking the arrow from Planck to Bohr serves as a reminder that not

362

THE QUANTUM THEORY

Kirchhoff

Theory

The quantum theory: Lines of influence.

so much the details of Planck’s work on radiation as the very introduction by
Planck of his new universal constant h was decisive for Bohr’s ideas about atomic
stability. An account of Bohr’s influence on Heisenberg and of Heisenberg’s and
Schroedinger’s impact on Dirac is beyond the scope of the present book.

In the case of Einstein and Bohr, it cannot be said that the work of one induced
major advances in the work of the other. Therefore, the simplified diagram does
not and should not contain links between them. Nevertheless, for forty years there
were influences at work between Einstein and Bohr and these were in fact intense,
but on a different plane. In a spirit of friendly and heroic antagonism, these two
men argued about questions of principle. Chapter 22 deals with Bohr’s resistance
to Einstein’s idea of the photon. This was but a brief interlude. It ended with the
detailed experimental vindication of the photon concept, to which Bohr fully sub-
scribed from then on. Their far more important debate on the foundations of
quantum mechanics began in 1927. On these issues, the intellectual resistance and

PRELIMINARIES

363

Opposition of one against the most basic views held by the other continued una-
bated until the end of Einstein’s life. At issue were the criteria by which one should
judge the completeness of the description of the physical world. Their discussions
have not affected the evolution of physical theory. Yet theirs will be remembered
as one of the great debates on scientific principle between two dominant contem-
porary figures.

The dialogue between Bohr and Einstein had one positive outcome: it forced
Bohr to express the tenets of complementarity in increasingly precise language.
This debate will be one of the themes of Chapter 25, which deals with Einstein’s
objections to quantum mechanics.

A point made earlier bears repeating here: Einstein’s own visions on physics
issues were often in opposition to the mainstream, but they were never negative.
So it was in the case of quantum mechanics. After 1930 he considered this theory
to be consistent and successful but incomplete. At the same time, he had his own
aspirations for a future theory of particles and fields. I shall try to make clear in
Chapter 26 what these were.

I do not believe that Einstein presented valid arguments for the incompleteness
of quantum theory, but neither do I think that the times are ripe to answer the
question of whether the quantum-mechanical description is indeed complete, since
to this day the physics of particles and fields is a subject beset with many unre-
solved fundamental problems. Among these, there is one that was most dear to
Einstein and with which he (and all of us to date) struggled in vain: the synthesis
of quantum physics with general relativity. In the survey given in Chapter 2, I
noted that we still have far to go in regard to this synthesis. The assessment of
Einstein’s view of this problem, to be given in Chapter 26, must therefore neces-
sarily be tentative.

References

Bl. J. J. Balmcr, AdP2$, 80 (1885).

Cl. J. Chadwick, Proceedings Tenth International Conference on the History of Science,
Ithaca, Vol., 1, p. 159. Hermann, Paris, 1962.

Dl. P.A.M. Dirac, Proc. Roy. Soc. A133, 60 (1931).

Kl. G. Kirchhoff and R. Bunsen, Ann. Phys. Chem. 110, 160 (1860).

K2. , Ann. Phys. Chem. 109, 275 (1860).

Ml. R. A. Millikan, Rev. Mod. Phys. 21, 343 (1949).

M2. , Phys. Rev. 7, 18 (1916).

M3. , Phys. Rev. 7, 355 (1916).

PI. A. Pais, letter dated December 9, 1948.

Rl. Rev. Mod. Phys. 21(3) (1949).

R2. E. Rutherford, Proc. Roy. Soc. A97, 374 (1920).

J- J- Thomson, Recollections and Reflections, p. 341. Bell, London, 1936.

Wl. H. Weyl, The theory of groups and quantum mechanics (2nd edn.), pp. 263-264
and preface. Dover, New York, 1930 (original edition published in 1928 as Grup-
pentheorie und Quantenmechanik).

The Light -Quantum

19a. From Kirchhoff to Planck

In the last four months of 1 859, there occurred a number of events that were to
change the course of science.

On the twelfth of September, Le Verrier submitted to the French Academy of
Sciences the text of his letter to Faye concerning an unexplained advance of the
perihelion of Mercury (see Section 14c), the effect explained by Einstein in
November 1915. On the twenty-fourth of November, a book was published in
London entitled On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the
Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, by Charles Robert Dar-
win, Meanwhile on the twentieth of October, Gustav Kirchhoff from Heidelberg
submitted his observation that the dark D lines in the solar spectrum are darkened
still further by the interposition of a sodium flame [Kl). As a result, a few weeks
later he proved a theorem and posed a challenge. The response to Kirchhoff’s
challenge led to the discovery of the quantum theory.

Consider a body in thermal equilibrium with radiation. Let the radiation
energy which the body absorbs be converted to thermal energy only, not to any
other energy form. Let E,dv denote the amount of energy emitted by the body per
unit time per cm^ in the frequency interval dv. Let A, be its absorption coefficient
for frequency v. Kirchhoff’s theorem [K21 states that EJ A, depends only on v
and the temperature T and is independent of any other characteristic of the body:

EJA^ = /(^7) (19.1)

Kirchhoff called a body perfectly black if A, ^ 1 . Thus f {v, T) is the emissive
power of a blackbody. He also gave an operational definition for a system, the
‘Hohlraumstrahlung,’ which acts as a perfect blackbody: ‘Given a space enclosed
by bodies of equal temperature, through which no radiation can penetrate, then
every bundle of radiation within this space is constituted, with respect to quality
and intensity, as if it came from a completely black body of the same temperature.’

Kirchhoff challenged theorists and experimentalists alike: ‘It is a highly impor-
tant task to find this function [/]. Great difficulties stand in the way of its exper-
imental determination. Nevertheless, there appear grounds for the hope that it has

364

the light-quantum 365

a simple form, as do all functions which do not depend on the properties of indi-
vidual bodies and which one has become acquainted with before now’ [K2].

Kirchhoff’s emphasis on the experimental complexities turned out to be well
justified. Even the simple property of J that it has one pronounced maximum
which moves to lower v with decreasing T was not firmly established experimen-
tally until about twenty years later [K3]. Experimentalists had to cope with three
main problems: (1) to construct manageable bodies with perfectly black properties,
(2) to devise radiation detectors with adequate sensitivity, and (3) to find ways of
extending the measurements over large frequency domains. Forty years of exper-
imentation had to go by before the data were sufficient to answer Kirchhoff’s
question.

Kirchhoff derived Eq. 19.1 by showing that its violation would imply the pos-
sibility of a perpetuum mobile of the second kind. The novelty of his theorem was
not so much its content as the precision and generality of its proof, based exclu-
sively on the still-young science of thermodynamics. A quarter of a century passed
before the next theoretical advance in blackbody radiation came about.

In 1879 Josef Stefan conjectured on experimental grounds that the total energy
radiated by a hot body varies with the fourth power of the absolute temperature
[SI]. This statement is not true in its generality. The precise formulation was
given in 1884, when Boltzmann (then a professsor of experimental physics in
Graz) proved theoretically that the strict law holds only for bodies which are
black. His proof again involved thermodynamics, but combined this time with a
still younger branch of theoretical physics: the electromagnetic theory of Maxwell.

For the case of Hohlraumstrahlung, the radiation is homogeneous, isotropic,
and unpolarized, so that

= (c/Sir)p(u/n (19.2)

where p{p^T), the spectral density, is the energy density per unit volume for fre-
quency p. In this case, the Stefan-Boltzmann law reads (F is the volume of the
cavity)

E{T) = vjp{i>,T)di> = aVr (19.3)

This law was the very first thermodynamic consequence derived from Maxwell’s
theorem, according to which the numerical value of the radiation pressure equals
one third of the energy per unit volume. When in 1893 Wilhelm Wien proved his
displacement law [Wl]

(19.4)

one had come as far as possible on the basis of thermodynamics and general elec-
tromagnetic theory. (Proofs of Eqs. 19.3 and 19.4 are found in standard texts.)

Meanwhile, proposals for the correct form of p had begun to appear as early
as the 1860s. All these guesses may be forgotten except for one, Wien’s exponential
law, proposed in 1896 [W2]:

366

THE QUANTUM THEORY

p = (19.5)

Experimental techniques had sufficiently advanced by then to put this formula to
the test. This was done by Friedrich Paschen from Hannover, whose measure-
ments (very good ones) were made in the near infrared, X = 1-8 pm (and T =
400-1600 K). He published his data in January 1897. His conclusion: ‘It would
seem very difficult to find another function [of v and T, Eq. 19.5] that represents
the data with as few constants’ [Plj. For a brief period, it appeared that Wien’s
law was the final answer. But then, in the year 1900, this conclusion turned out
to be premature and the correct response to Kirchhoff’s challenge was found. Two
factors were decisive. One was a breakthrough in experimental techniques in the
far infrared. The other was the persistence and vision of Planck.

It happened in Berlin. At the Physikalisch Technische Reichsanstalt, at that
time probably the world’s best-equipped physics laboratory, two teams were
independently at work on blackbody radiation experiments. The first of these,
Otto Lummer and Ernst Pringsheim, had tackled the problem in an as yet unex-
plored wavelength region, X = 12-18 pm (and T = 300-1650 K). In February
1900 they stated their conclusion: Wien’s law fails in that region [LI].* The sec-
ond team, consisting of Heinrich Rubens and Ferdinand Kurlbaum, moved even
farther into the infrared: X = 30-60 pm (and T = 200-1 500® C). They arrived
at the same conclusion [Rl].

I need to say more about the latter results, but I should like to comment first
on the role of experiment in the discovery of the quantum theory. The Rubens-
Kurlbaum paper is a classic. The work of these authors, as well as that of Paschen
and of Lummer and Pringsheim, was of a pioneering nature. By the middle of the
nineteenth century, wavelengths had been measured up to X « 1.5pm. Progress
was slow in the next forty years, as demonstrated by a question raised by Samuel
Pierpont Langley in a lecture given in 1885 before the AAAS meeting in Ann
Arbor: ‘Does [the] ultimate wavelength of 2.7 pm which our atmosphere transmits
correspond to the lowest [frequency] which can be obtained from any terrestrial
source?’ [L2]. The great advance came in the 1890s. The first sentence of the first
paper in the first issue of the Physical Review reads as follows: ‘Within a few
years the study of obscure radiation has been greatly advanced by systematic
inquiry into the laws of dispersion of the infrared rays.’ This was written in 1893,
by Ernest Fox Nichols. At about that time, new techniques were developed which
culminated in the ‘Reststrahlcn,’ residual rays, method of Rubens and Nichols
[R2|: one eliminates short wavelengths from a beam of radiation by subjecting it
to numerous reflections on quartz or other surfaces. This procedure leads to the
isolation of the long wavelengths in the beam. These experimental developments
are of fundamental importance for our main subject, the quantum theory, since
they were crucial to the discovery of the blackbody radiation law.

•There had been earlier indications of deviations from Wien’s law, but these were not well
documented.

the light-quantum

367

Sample of the Rubens-Kurlbaum data which led Planck to guess his radiation formula
(Rl). p is plotted versus T' for X = 51.2pm. (‘‘berechnet nach” means “computed after”,
“beobachtet” means “observed”,) The curves marked “Wien” and “Lord Rayleigh” refer
to best fits to the Eqs. (19.5), (19.17), respectively. The curves marked “Thiescn” and
“Lummer-Jahnkc” refer to theoretical proposals which arc not discussed in this book.
Planck’s formula is not yet plotted.

The paper by Rubens and Kurlbaum was presented to the Prussian Academy
on October 25, 1900. The figure above shows some of the measured points they
recorded* and some theoretical curves with which they compared their findings.
One of these was the Wien curve, which did not work. Neither did a second curve,
proposed by Rayleigh (I shall return to Rayleigh’s work in section 19c). I shall
leave aside the two other comparison curves they drew and turn to the all-impor-
tant ‘fifth formula, given by Herr M. Planck after our experiments had already

*Thcse refer to observations at X ■ 51.2pm. This wavelength was isolated by multiple reflections
off rock salt. The blackbody radiation intensity is plotted as a function of 7. (Recall that after mul-
tiple reflection, those sptecific frequencies predominantly survive which correspond to the ionic vibra-
tions in the crystal lattice chosen as reflector.)

368

THE QUANTUM THEORY

been concluded . . . [and which] reproduces our observations [from —188° to
1500°G] within the limits of error’ [Rlj.

KirchhofT had moved from Heidelberg to Berlin to take the chair in theoretical
physics. After his death, this position was offered to Boltzmann, who declined.
Then Heinrich Hertz was approached; he also declined. The next candidate was
Planck, to whom the offer of extraordinarius (associate professor) was made.
Planck accepted and was soon promoted to full professor. His new position
brought him close to the experimental developments outlined above. This nearness
was to be one of the decisive factors in the destiny of this most unusual man.

Planck most probably* discovered his law in the early evening of Sunday,
October 7. Rubens and his wife had called on the Plancks on the afterncnm of that
day. In the course of the conversation, Rubens mentioned to Planck that he had
found p{v, T) to be proportional to T for small v. Planck went to work after the
visitors left and found an interpolation between this result and Wien’s law, Eq.
19.5. He communicated his formula by postcard to Rubens that same evening and
stated it publicly [P3] in a discussion remark on October 19, following the pre-
sentation of a paper by Kurlbaum. Expressed in notations introduced by Planck
two months later, he proposed that

~ 7 " 7717-37

(19.6)

Equation 19.6 contains Wien’s law of 1896;

for — »
kT

(19.7)

which is indeed correct in the quantum regime hv/kT » 1, a condition that is
well satisfied in Paschen’s experiment mentioned earlier {hvjkT ~ 15 for T =
1000 K and X = 1 ^m). Strange as it may sound, the quantum theory was dis-
covered only after classical deviations from the quantum regime had been observed
in the far infrared.

It would do grave injustice to Planck if I left the reader with the impression
that Planck’s discovery was exclusively the result of interpolating experimental
data. For years, it had been his ambition to derive the correct radiation law from
first principles. Thus the rapidity of his response to Ruben’s remark is less sur-
prising than the correctness of his answer. I must refrain from discussing Planck’s
earlier research (cf. [K4]), nor shall I describe how he made his guess. However,
it is very important for an understanding of Einstein’s starting point in 1905 and
of the subsequent reactions to the light-quantum hypothesis to give a brief account
of Planck’s activities from October to December 1900, the heroic period of his life.

•Here 1 rely on the obituary of Rubens by Gerhard Hettner IHl}, himself an experimental expert
on blackbody radiation. Hetincr’s account differs slightly from the recollections that Planck himself
wrote in his late eighties [P21.

the light-quantum

369

Even if Planck had stopped after October 19, he would forever be remembered
as the discoverer of the radiation law. It is a true measure of his greatness that he
went further. He wanted to interpret Eq. 19.6. That made him the discoverer of
the quantum theory. I shall briefly outline the three steps he took [P4).

The Electromagnetic Step. This concerns a result Planck had obtained some
time earlier [P5]. Consider a linear oscillator with mass m and charge e in inter-
action with a fnonochromatic, periodic electric field (with frequency w) in the
direction of its motion. The equation of motion is

mx -T fx — jr = eF cos 2xaj/
ic

(19.8)

Let denote the frequency of the free oscillator, //m = (27rt/)l Consider in par-
ticular the case in which the radiation damping due to the x term is very small,
that is, y <K u, where 7 = 87r^^V/3mc\ Then one may approximate x by —
(lirvfx. The solution of Eq. 19.8 can be written (see (P6J) x = C cos {liroit —
a). One can readily solve for C and a The energy E of the oscillator equals
12, and one finds that

E =

e^F^ 1

2m 4ir{if — (jSf + 7^

(19.9)

Next, let the electric field consist of an incoherent isotropic superposition of fre-
quencies in thermal equilibrium at temperature T In that case, the equilibrium
energy LI of the oscillator is obtained by replacing the electric lield energy density
/2 in Eq, 19.9 by 47rp(aj, 7)<^cij/3 and by integrating over oj

47rg^ r T)dw

3m J 47r(t/ — wY -f 7^

(19.10)

Since 7 is very small, the response of the oscillator is maximal if a; = r. Thus we
may replace p(cj, 7^ by p{i>, 7) and extend the integration from —00 to + 00 . This
yields

p(v,T) = ^U(v,T) (19.11)

This equation for the joint equilibrium of matter and radiation, one of Planck’s
important contributions to classical physics, was the starting point for his discovery
of the quantum theory. As we soon shall see, this same equation was also the point
of departure for Einstein’s critique in 1905 of Planck’s reasoning and for his quan-
tum theory of specific heats.

The Thermodynamic Step. Planck concluded from Eq. 19.11 that it suffices
to determine V in order to find p. (There is a lot more to be said about this
seemingly innocent statement; see Section 19b.) Working backward from Eqs.
19.6 and 19.11, he found IJ. Next he determined the entropy S of the linear

370

THE QUANTUM THEORY

oscillator by integrating TdS = dU^ where T is to be taken as a function of U
(for fixed v). This yields

5 =

-^1

hv " hv

(19.12)

Equation 19.6 follows if one can derive Eq. 19.12.

The Statistical Step, I should rather say, what Planck held to be a statistical
step. Consider a large number N of linear oscillators, all with frequency v. Let
Uj 4 = NU and Sf^ = be the total energy and entropy of the system, respectively.

Put Sn = where is the thermodynamic probability. Now comes the

quantum postulate.

The total energy 11^ is supposed to be made up of finite energy elements
= A, where P is a large number. Define to be the number of ways in which
the P indistinguishable energy elements can be distributed over N distinguishable
oscillators. Example: for = 2 , P = 3, the partitions are (36,0), ( 26 , 6 ), ( 6 , 26 ),
(0,36). In general,

(iV - 1 -h P)\
F.{N - 1)!

(19.13)

Insert this in S^ = Ain use P/N - U/€, Ss
approximation. This gives

5 ’ =

NS and apply the Stirling

6 6

(19.14)

It follows from Eqs. 19.4 and 19.11, and from TdS = dU, that 5 is a function
of U/i^ only. Therefore

6 = hp (19.15)

Thus one recovers Exj. 19.12, And that is how the quantum theory was born. This
derivation was first presented on December 14, 1900 [P4).

From the point of view of physics in 1900 the logic of Planck’s electromagnetic
and thermodynamic steps was impeccable, but his statistical step was wild. The
latter was clearly designed to argue backwards from Eqs. 19.13-19.15 to 19.12.
In 1931 Planck referred to it as ‘an act of desperation. ... I had to obtain a positive
result, under any circumstances and at whatever cost’ [H2]. Actually there were
two desperate acts rather than one. First, there was his unheard-of step of attach-
ing physical significance to finite ‘energy elements’ [Eq. 19.15]. Second, there was
his equally unheard-of counting procedure given by Eq. 19.13. In Planck’s opin-
ion, ‘the electromagnetic theory of radiation does not provide us with any starting
point whatever to speak of such a probability [ Wj^] in a definite sense’ [Pl\. This
statement is, of course, incorrect. As will be discussed in Section 19b, the classical
equipartition theorem could have given him a quite definite method for determin-

THE LIGHT-QUANTUM

371

ing all thermodynamic quantities he was interested in — but would not have given
him the answer he desired to derive.

However, let us leave aside for the moment what Planck did not do or what he
might have done and return to his unorthodox handling of Boltzmann’s principle.
In his papers, Planck alluded to the inspiration he had received from Boltzmann’s
statistical methods.* But in Boltzmann’s case the question was to determine the
most probable way in which a fixed number of distinguishable gas molecules with
fixed total energy are distributed over cells in phase space. The corresponding
counting problem, discussed previously in Section 4b, has nothing to do with
Planck’s counting of partitions of indistinguishable objects, the enei^ elements.
In fact, this new way of counting, which prefigures the Bose-Einstein counting of
a quarter century later, cannot be justified by any stretch of the classical imagi-
nation. Planck himself knew that and said so. Referring to Eq. 19.13, he wrote:

Experience will prove whether this hypothesis [my italics) is realized in nature.

[P71**

Thus the only justification for Planck’s two desperate acts was that they gave him
what he wanted. His reasoning was mad, but his madness has that divine quality
that only the greatest transitional figures can bring to science. It cast Planck, con-
servative by inclination, into the role of a reluctant revolutionary. Deeply rooted
in nineteenth century thinking and prejudice, he made the first conceptual break
that has made twentieth century physics look so discontinuously different from
that of the preceding era. Although there have been other major innovations in
physics since December 1900, the world has not seen since a figure like Planck.

From 1859 to 1926, blackbody radiation remained a problem at the frontier of
theoretical physics, first in thermodynamics, then in electromagnetism, then in the
old quantum theory, and finally in quantum statistics. From the experimental
point of view, the right answer had been found by 1900. As Pringsheim put it in
a lecture given in 1903, ‘Planck’s equation is in such good agreement with exper-
iment that it can be considered, at least to high approximation, as the mathemat-
ical expression of Kirchhoff’s function’ [P8]. That statement still holds true. Sub-
sequent years saw only refinements of the early results.

The quality of the work by the experimental pioneers can best be illustrated by
the following numbers. In 1901 Planck obtained from the available data the value
h = 6.55 X 10“^^ erg- s for his constant [P9). The modern value is 6.63 X 10”^^
For the Boltzmann constant, he found k = 1.34 X 10"‘^ erg-K“’; the present
best value is 1.38 X 10”‘^. Using his value for k, he could determine Avogadro’s
number N from the relation R = Nk, where R is the gas constant. Then from
Faraday’s law for univalent electrolytes, F = Ne^ he obtained the value e = 4.69
X 10" esu [P7]. The present best value is 4.80 X 10"’°. At the time of Planck’s

*In January 1905 and again in January 1906, Planck proposed Boltzmann for the Nobel prize.

^'‘The interesting suggestion has been made that Planck may have been led to Eq. 19.13 by a math-
ematical formula in one of Boltzmann’s papers [K4l.

372 THE QUANTUM THEORY

determination of e, J. J. Thomson [Tl] had measured the charge of the electron
with the result e = 6.5 X Not until 1908, when the charge of the alpha
particle was found to be 9.3 X 10“’® [R3] was it realized how good Planck’s value
for e was.

From the very start, Planck’s results were a source of inspiration and bewil-
derment to Einstein. Addressing Planck in 1929, he said ‘It is twenty-nine years
ago that I was inspired by his ingenious derivation of the radiation formula which
. . . applied Boltzmann’s statistical method in such a novel way’ [El]. In 1913,
Einstein wrote that Planck’s work ‘invigorates and at the same time makes so
difficult the physicist’s existence. ... It would be edifying if we could weigh the
brain substance which has been sacrified by the physicists on the altar of the [Kirch-
hoff function]; and the end of these cruel sacrifices is not yet in sight!’ [E2]. Of his
own earliest efforts, shortly after 1900, to understand the quantum theory, he
recalled much later that ‘all my attempts ... to adapt the theoretical foundations
of physics to this [new type of] knowledge failed completely. It was as if the ground
had been pulled from under one, with no firm foundation to be seen anywhere’
(E3).

From my discussions with Einstein, I know that he venerated Planck as the
discoverer of the quantum theory, that he deeply respected him as a human being
who stood firm under the inordinate sufferings of his personal life and of his coun-
try, and that he was grateful to him: ‘You were the first to advocate the theory of
relativity’ [El]. In 1918 he proposed Planck for the Nobel prize.* In 1948, after
Planck’s death, Einstein wrote, ‘This discovery [i.e., the quantum theory] set sci-
ence a fresh task: that of finding a new conceptual basis for all of physics. Despite
remarkable partial gains, the problem is still far from a satisfactory solution’ [E4].

Let us now return to the beginnings of the quantum theory. Nothing further
happened in quantum physics after 1901 until Einstein proposed the light-quan-
tum hypothesis.

19b. Einstein on Planck: 1905.

The Rayleigh-Einstein-Jeans Law

The first sentence on the quantum theory published by Einstein was written in
the month of March, in the year 1905. It is the title of his first paper on light-
quanta, ‘On a heuristic point of view concerning the generation and conversion of
light’ [E5, Alj. (In this chapter, I shall call this paper the March paper.) Web-
ster’s Dictionary contains the following definition of the term heuristic: ‘providing
aid and direction in the solution of a problem but otherwise unjustified or inca-
pable of Justification.’ Later on, I shall mention the last sentence published by
Einstein on scientific matters, also written in March, exactly one half-century

*Scc Chapter 30.

the light-quantum

373

later. It also deals with the quantum theory. It has one thing in common with the
opening sentence mentioned above. They both express Einstein’s view that the
quantum theory is provisional in nature. The persistence of this opinion of Ein-
stein’s is one of the main themes of this book. Whatever one may think of the
status of the quantum theory in 1955, in 1905 this opinion was, of course, entirely
justified.

In the March pap>er, Einstein referred to Eq. 19.6 as ‘the Planck formula,
which agrees with all experiments to date.’ But what was the meaning of Planck’s
derivation of that equation? ‘The imperfections of [that derivation] remained at
first hidden, which was most fortunate for the development of physics’ [E3]. The
March paper opens with a section entitled ‘on a difficulty concerning the theory
of blackbody radiation,’ in which he put these imperfections in sharp focus.

His very simple argument was based on two solid consequences of classical
theory. The first of these was the Planck equation (Eq. 19.11). The second was
the equipartition law of classical mechanics. Applied to U in Eq. (19.11), that is,
to the equilibrium energy of a one-dimensional material harmonic oscillator, this
law yields

U{v,T) = {R/N)T (19.16)

where R is the gas constant, N Avogadro’s number, and R/N (= k) the Boltz-
mann constant (for a number of years, Einstein did not use the symbol k in his
papers). From Eqs. 19.10 and 19.16, Einstein obtained

p{v,T) - — - T

(19.17)

and went on to note that this classical relation is in disagreement with experiment
and has the disastrous consequence that a = oo, where a is the Stefan- Boltzmann
constant given in Eq. 19.3.

‘If Planck had drawn this conclusion, he would probably not have made his
great discovery,’ Einstein said later [E3]. Planck had obtained Eq. 19.1 1 in 1897.
At that time, the equipartition law had been known for almost thirty years. Dur-
ing the 1890s, Planck had made several errors in reasoning before he arrived at
his radiation law, but none as astounding and of as great an historical significance
as his fortunate failure to be the first to derive Eq. 19.17. This omission is no
doubt related to Planck’s decidedly negative attitude (before 1900) towards Boltz-
mann’s ideas on statistical mechanics.

Equation 19,17, commonly known as the Rayleigh -Jeans law, has an inter-
esting and rather hilarious history, as may be seen from the following chronology
of events.

June 1900, There appears a brief paper by Rayleigh [R4]. It contains for the
first time the suggestion to apply to radiation ‘the Maxwell -Boltzmann doctrine
of the partition of energy’ (i.e., the equipartition theorem). From this doctrine,
Rayleigh goes on to derive the relation p = T but does not evaluate the con-
stant c,. It should be stressed that Rayleigh’s derivation of this result had the

374

THE QUANTUM THEORY

distinct advantage over Planck’s reasoning of dispensing altogether with the lat-
ter’s material oscillators.* Rayleigh also realizes that this relation should be inter-
preted as a limiting law: The suggestion is then that [p = rather than

[Wien’s law, Eq. 19.5] may be the proper form when [ T/v] is great^ (my ital-
ics).** In order to suppress the catastrophic high frequency behavior, he intro-
duces next an ad hoc exponential cutoff factor and proposes the overall radiation
law

p{VyT) = cyTtxp(—c^/T) (19.18)

This expression became known as the Rayleigh law. Already in 1 900 Rubens and
Kurlbaum (and also Lummer and Pringsheim) found this law wanting, as was
seen on page 367.

Thus the experimentalists close to Planck were well aware of Rayleigh’s work.
One wonders whether or not Planck himself knew of this important paper, which
appeared half a year before he proposed his own law. Whichever may be the case,
in 1900 Planck did not refer to Rayleigh’s contribution.!

March 17 and June 9, 1905. Einstein gives the derivation of Eq. 19.17 dis-
cussed previously. His paper is submitted March 17 and appears on June 9.

May 6 and 18, 1905. In a letter to Nature (published May 18), Rayleigh
returns to his i/^Tlaw and now computes c,. His answer for c, is off by a factor
of8[R5].

June 5, 1905. James Hopwood Jeans adds a postscript to a completed paper,
in which he corrects Rayleigh’s oversight. The paper apf)ears a month later [Jlj.
In July 1905 Rayleigh acknowledges Jeans’ contribution [R6].

It follows from this chronology (not that it matters much) that the Rayleigh -
Jeans law ought properly to be called the Rayleigh-Einstein-Jeans law.

The purpose of this digression about Eq. 19.17 is not merely to note who said
what first. Of far greater interest is the role this equation played in the early
reactions to the quantum theory. From 1900 to 1905, Planck’s radiation formula
was generally considered to be neither more nor less than a successful represen-
tation of the data (see [Bl]). Only in 1905 did it begin to dawn, and then only on

* Planck derived his radiation law in a circuitous way via the equilibrium properties of his material
oscillators. He did so because of his simultaneous concern with two questions, How is radiative
equilibrium established? What is the equilibrium distribution? The introduction of the material
oscillators would, Planck hoped, show the way to answer both questions. Rayleigh wisely concen-
trated on the second question only. He considered a cavity filled with 'aetherial oscillators’ assumed
to be in equilibrium. This enabled him to apply equipartition directly to these radiation oscillators.

••This same observation was also made independently by Einstein in 1905 (E5].

fNeither did Lorentz, who in 1903 gave still another derivation of the v^T law [L3]. The details
need not concern us. It should be noted that Lorentz gave the correct answer for the constant c\.
However, he did not derive the expression for ci directly. Rather he found c\ by appealing to the
long-wavelength limit of Planck’s law.

the light-quantum

375

a few, that a crisis in physics was at hand [E6]. The failure of the Rayleigh -
Einstein-Jeans law was the cause of this turn of events.

Rayleigh’s position on the failure of Eq. 19.17 as a universal law was that ‘we
must admit the failure of the law of equipartition in these extreme cases’ (i.e., at
high frequencies) [R5]. Jeans took a different view: the equipartition law is cor-
rect but ‘the supposition that the energy of the ether is in equilibrium with that
of matter is utterly erroneous in the case of ether vibrations of short wavelength
under experimental conditions’ [J2]. Thus Jeans considered Planck’s constant h
as a phenomenological parameter well-suited as an aid in fitting data but devoid
of fundamental significance. The nonequilibrium-versus-failure-of-equipartition
debate continued for a number of years [H2]. The issue was still raised at the first
Solvay Congress in 191 1, but by then the nonequilibrium view no longer aroused
much interest.

The March paper, the first of Einstein’s six papers written in 1905, was com-
pleted almost exactly one year after he had finished the single article he published
in 1904 [E7], in which Planck is mentioned for the first time (see Section 4c). The
middle section of that paper is entitled ‘On the meaning of the constant k in the
kinetic atomic energy,’ k being half the Boltzmann constant. In the final section,
‘Application to radiation,’ he had discussed energy fluctuations of radiation near
thermal equilibrium. He was on his way from studying the second law of ther-
modynamics to finding methods for the determination of k or — which is almost
the same thing — Avogadro’s number N. He was also on his way from statistical
physics to quantum physics. After the 1904 paper came a one-year pause. His
first son was born. His first permanent appointment at the patent office came
through. He thought long and hard in that year, I believe. Then, in Section 2 of
the March paper, he stated the first new method of the many he was to give in
1905 for the determination of N\ compare Eq. 19.17 with the long-wavelength
experimental data. This gave him

N = 6.17 X 10” (19.19)

This value is just as good as the one Planck had found from his radiation law,
but, Einstein argued, if I use Eq. 19.17 instead of Planck’s law (Eq. 19.6), then
I understand from accepted first principles what I am doing.

Einstein derived the above value for N in the light-quantum paper, completed
in March 1905. One month later, in his doctoral thesis, he found = 2.1 X
10”. He did not point out either that the March value was good or that the April
value left something to be desired, for the simple reason that N was not known
well at that time. I have already discussed the important role that Einstein’s May
1905 method. Brownian motion, played in the consolidation of the value for M

We now leave the classical part of the March paper and turn to its quantum
part.

376

THE QUANTUM THEORY

19c. The Light-Quantum Hypothesis and the Heuristic Principle

I mentioned in Chapter 3 that the March paper was Einstein’s only contribution
that he himself called revolutionary. Let us next examine in detail what this rev-
olution consisted of.

In 1905, it was Einstein’s position that Eq. 19.6 agreed with experiment but
not with existing theory, whereas Eq. 19.17 agreed with existing theory but not
with experiment. He therefore set out to study blackbody radiation in a new way
‘which is not based on a picture of the generation and propagation of radiation’ —
that is, which does not make use of Planck’s equation (Eq. 19.1 1). But then some-
thing had to be found to replace that equation. For that purpose, Einstein chose
to reason ‘im Anschluss an die Erfahrung,’ phenomenologically. His new starting
point was the experimentally known validity of Wien’s guess (Eq. 19.5) in the
region of large ^vjT, the Wien regime. He extracted the light-quantum postulate
from an analogy between radiation in the Wien regime and a classical ideal gas
of material particles.

Einstein began by rederiving in his own way the familiar formula for the finite
reversible change of entropy S at constant T for the case where n gas molecules
in the volume Vq are confined to a subvolume v:

S(v. T) - S(v,, 7 ') = ^ In (^0 (19.20)

Two and a half pages of the March paper are devoted to the derivation and dis-
cussion of this relation. What Einstein had to say on this subject was described
following Eq. 4.15.

Now to the radiation problem. Let {v,T)dv be the entropy density per unit
volume in the frequency interval between v and v -f dv. Then (p is again the
spectral density)

^ - 1
dp ^ T

(19.21)

Assume that Wien’s guess (Eq. 19.5) is applicable. Then

(19.22)

Let the radiation be contained in a volume v. Then S(v,v,T) = <t>vdv and E{y,
v,T) ^ pvdv are the total entropy and energy in that volume in the interval u to
V 4* dv, respectively. In the Wien regime, S follows trivially from Eq. 19.22 and
one finds that

Compare Eqs. 19.23 and 19.20 and we have Einstein’s

(19.23)

THE LIGHT-QUANTUM

377

Light-quantum hypothesis: Monochromatic radiation of low density [i.e.,
within the domain of validity of the Wien radiation formula] behaves in ther-
modynamic respect as if it consists of mutually independent energy quanta of
magnitude R^v/N (/? = h/k, R/N = k, R^v/N = hv).

This result, which reads like a theorem, was nevertheless a hypothesis since it
was based on Wien’s guess, which itself still needed proof from first principles.
To repeat, the derivation is based on a blend of purely classical theoretical physics
with a piece of experimental information that defies description in classical terms.
The genius of the light-quantum hypothesis lies in the intuition for choosing the
right piece of experimental input and the right, utterly simple, theoretical ingre-
dients. One may wonder what on earth moved Einstein to think of the volume
dependence of the entropy as a tool for his derivation. That choice is less surprising
if one recalls* that a year earlier the question of volume dependence had seemed
quite important to him for the analysis of the energy fluctuations of radiation.

Einstein’s introduction of light-quanta in the Wien regime is the first step
toward the concept of radiation as a Bose gas of photons. Just as was the case for
Planck’s derivation of his radiation law, Einstein’s derivation of the light-quantum
hypothesis grew out of statistical mechanics. The work of both men has a touch
of madness, though of a far more subtle kind in Einstein’s case. To see this, please
note the words mutually independent in the formulation of the hypothesis. Since
1925, we have known (thanks to Bose and especially to Einstein) that the photon
gas obeys Bose statistics for all frequencies, that the statistical independence of
energy quanta is not true in general, and that the gas analogy which makes use
of the Boltzmann statistics relation (Eq. 19.20) is not true in general either. We
also know that it is important not to assume — as Einstein had tacitly done in his
derivation — that the number of energy quanta is in general conserved. However,
call it genius, call it luck, in the Wien regime the counting according to Boltzmann
and the counting according to Bose happen to give the same answer while non-
conservation of photons effectively plays no role. This demands some explanation,
which I shall give in Chapter 23.

So far there is still no revolution. The physicist of 1905 could take or leave the
light-quantum hypothesis as nothing more than a curious property of pure radia-
tion in thermal equilibrium, without any physical consequence. Einstein’s
extraordinary boldness lies in the step he took next, a step which, incidentally,
gained him the Nobel prize in 1922.

The heuristic principle: If, in regard to the volume dependence of the entropy,
monochromatic radiation (of sufficiently low density) behaves as a discrete
medium consisting of energy quanta of magnitude R^v/ N, then this suggests
an inquiry as to whether the laws of the generation and conversion of light are
also constituted as if light were to consist of energy quanta of this kind.

See the discussion following Eq. 4 14.

378

THE QUANTUM THEORY

In Other words, the light-quantum hypothesis is an assertion about a quantum
property of free electromagnetic radiation; the heuristic principle is an extension
of these properties of light to the interaction between light and matter. That,
indeed, was a revolutionary step.

I shall leave Einstein’s applications of the heuristic principle to Section 19e and
shall describe next how, in 1906, Einstein ceased assiduously avoiding Planck’s
equation (Eq. 19.11) and embraced it as a new hypothesis.

19d. Einstein on Planck: 1906

In 1906 Einstein returned once more to Planck’s theory of 1900. Now he had
much more positive things to say about Planck’s radiation law. This change in
attitude was due to his realization that ‘Planck’s theory makes implicit use of the
. . . light-quantum hypothesis’ [E8]. Einstein’s reconsideration of Planck’s reason-
ing and of its relation to his own work can be summarized in the following way:

1. Planck had used the p-U relation, Eq. 19.11, which follows from classical
mechanics and electrodynamics.

2. Planck had introduced a quantization related to namely, the prescription
U = Php/N(sct Eqs. 19.12-19.15).

3. If one accepts step 2, which is alien to classical theory, then one has no reason
to trust Eq. 19.11, which is an orthodox consequence of classical theory.

4. Einstein had introduced a quantization related to p: the light-quantum hypoth-
esis, In doing so, he had not used the p- U relation (Eq. 19.1 1).

5. The question arises of whether a connection can be established between
Planck’s quantization related to U and Einstein’s quantization related to p.

Einstein’s answer was that this is indeed possible, namely, by introducing a
new assumption: Eq. 19.1 1 is also valid in the quantum theory! Thus he proposed
to trust Eq. 19.11 even though its theoretical foundation had become a mystery
when quantum effects arc important. He then re-examined the derivation of
Planck’s law with the help of this new assumption. I omit the details and only
state his conclusion. ‘We must consider the following theorem to be the basis of
Planck’s radiation theory: the energy of a [Planck oscillator] can take on only those
values that arc integral multiples of hp; in emission and absorption the energy of
a [Planck oscillator] changes by jumps which arc multiples of hp.' Thus already
in 1906 Einstein correctly guessed the main properties of a quantum mechanical
material oscillator and its behavior in radiative transitions. We shall sec in Section
19f that Planck was not at all prepared to accept at once Einstein’s reasoning,
despite the fact that it lent support to his own endeavors. As to Einstein himself,
his acceptance of Planck’s Eq. 19.1 1, albeit as a hypothesis, led to a major advance
in his own work: the quantum theory of specific heats, to be discussed in the next
chapter.

the light-quantum

379

19 e. The Photoelectric Effect: The Second Coming of h

The most widely remembered part of Einstein’s March paper deals with his inter-
pretation of the photoelectric effect. The present discussion of this subject is orga-
nized as follows. After a few general remarks, I sketch its history from 1887 to
1905. Then I turn to Einstein’s contribution. Finally I outline the developments
up to 1916, by which time Einstein’s predictions were confirmed.

These days, pholoelectron spectroscopy is a giant field of research with its own
journals. Gases, liquids, and solids are being investigated. Applications range from
solid state physics to biology. The field has split into subdisciplines, such as the
spectroscopy in the ultraviolet and in the X-ray region. In 1905, however, the
subject was still in its infancy. We have a detailed picture of the status of photo-
electricity a few months before Einstein finished his paper on light-quanta: the
first review article on the photoelectric effect, completed in December 1904 [S2],
shows that at that time photoelectricity was as much a frontier subject as were
radioactivity, cathode ray physics, and (to a slightly lesser extent) the study of
Hertzian waves.

In 1905 the status of experimental techniques was still rudimentary in all these
areas; yet in each of them initial discoveries of great importance had already been
made. Not suprisingly, an experimentalist mainly active in one of these areas
would also work in some of the others. Thus Henz, the first to observe a photo-
electric phenomenon (if we consider only the so-called external photoelectric
effect), made this discovery at about the same time he demonstrated the electro-
magnetic nature of light. The high school teachers Julius Elster and Hans Geitel
pioneered the study of photoelectric effects in vacuum tubes and construaed the
first phototubes [E9); they also performed fundamental experiments in radioac-
tivity. Pierre Curie and one of his co-workers were the first to discover that pho-
toelectric effects can be induced by X-rays [Cl]. J. J. Thomson is best remem-
bered for his discovery of the electron in his study of cathode rays [T2]; yet
perhaps his finest experimental contribution deals with the photoeffect.

Let us now turn to the work of the pioneers.

1887: Hertz. Five experimental observations made within the span of one
decade largely shaped the physics of the twentieth century. In order of appearance,
they are the discoveries of the photoelectric effect. X-rays, radioactivity, the Zee-
man effect, and the electron. The first three of these were made accidentally. Hertz
found the photoeffect when he became intrigued by a side effect he had observed
in the course of his investigations on the electromagnetic wave nature of light
IH3]. At one point, he was studying spark discharges generated by potential dif-
ferences between two metal surfaces. A primary spark coming from one surface
generates a secondary spark on the other. Since the latter was harder to see. Hertz
built an enclosure around it to eliminate stray light. He was struck by the fact
that this caused a shortening of the secondary spark. He found next that this effect
was due to that part of the enclosure that was interposed between the two sparks.

38 o

THE QUANTUM THEORY

It was not an electrostatic effect, since it made no qualitative difference whether
the interposed surface was a conductor or an insulator. Hertz began to suspect
that it might be due to the light given off by the primary spark. In a delightful
series of exp)eriments, he confirmed his guess: light can produce sparks. For exam-
ple, he increased the distance between the metal surfaces until sparks ceased to be
produced. Then he illuminated the surfaces with a nearby electric arc lamp: the
sparks reappeared. He also came to the (not quite correct) conclusion that ‘If the
observed phenomenon is indeed an action of light, then it is only one of ultraviolet
light.’

1888: Hallwachs. Stimulated by Hertz’s work, Wilhelm Hallwachs showed
next that irradiation with ultraviolet light causes uncharged metallic bodies to
acquire a positive charge [H4].

The earliest speculations on the nature of the effect predate the discovery of the
electron in 1897. It was suggested in 1889 that ultraviolet light might cause specks
of metallic dust to leave the metal surface [L4].

1899: J. J. Thomson. Thomson was the first to state that the photoeffect
induced by ultraviolet light consists of the emission of electrons [T31. He began
his photoelectric studies by measuring the e/m of the particles produced by light,
using the same method he had applied to cathode rays two years earlier (the par-
ticle beams move through crossed electric and magnetic fields). His conclusion:
‘The value of m/e in the case of ultraviolet light. ... is the same as for cathode
rays.’ In 1897 he had been unable to determine m ov e separately for cathode
rays. Now he saw his way clear to do this for photoelectrons. His second conclu-
sion: ^e is the same in magnitude as the charge carried by the hydrogen atom in
the electrolysis of solutions.’

Thomson’s method for finding e is of major interest, since it is one of the earliest
applications of cloud chamber techniques. His student Charles Thomson Rees
Wilson had discovered that charged particles can form nuclei for condensation of
supersaturated water vapor. Thomson applied this method to the determination
of the number of charged particles by droplet counting. Their total charge was
determined electrometrically. In view of these technical innovations, his value for
e (6.8 X 10”’® esu) must be considered very respectable.

1902: Lenard. In 1902 Philip Lenard studied the photoeffect using a carbon
arc light as a source. He could vary the intensity of his light source by a factor of
1000. He made the crucial discovery that the electron energy showed ‘not the
slightest dependence on the light intensity’ [L5]. What about the variation of the
photoclectron energy with the light frequency? One increases with the other; noth-
ing more was known in 1905 [S2].

1905: Einstein. On the basis of his heuristic principle, Einstein proposed the
following ‘simplest picture’ for the photoeffect. A light-quantum gives all its
energy to a single electron, and the energy transfer by one light-quantum is inde-
pendent of the presence of other light-quanta. He also noted that an electron
ejected from the interior of the body will in general suffer an energy loss before

THE LIGHT-QUANTUM

381

it reaches the surface. Let be the electron energy for the case where this
energy loss is zero. Then, Einstein proposed, we have the relation (in modern
notation)

^ hv- P (19.24)

where v is the frequency of the incident (monochromatic) radiation and P is the
work function, the energy needed to escape the surface. He pointed out that Eq.
19.24 explains Lenard’s observation of the light intensity independence of the elec-
tron energy.

Equation 19.24 represents the second coming of h. This equation made very
new and very strong predictions. First, E should vary linearly with v. Second, the
slope of the {E,v) plot is a universal constant, independent of the nature of the
irradiated material. Third, the value of the slope was predicted to be Planck’s
constant determined from the radiation law. None of this was known then.

Einstein gave several other applications of his heuristic principle: (1) the fre-
quency of light in photoluminescence cannot exceed the frequency of the incident
light (Stokes’s rule) [E5); (2) in photoionization, the energy of the emitted electron
cannot exceed hv, where v is the incident light frequency [E5];* (3) in 1906, he
discussed the application to the inverse photoeffect (the Volta effect) [E8]; (4) in
1909, he treated the generation of -secondary cathode rays by X-rays [El 1]; (5) in
1911, he used the principle to predict the high-frequency limit in Bremsstrahlung
(E12].

1915: Millikan; the Duane- Hunt Limit. In 1909, a second review paper on
the photoeffect appeared [L6]. We learn from it that experiments were in progress
to find the frequency dependence of E^^^ but that no definite conclusions could be
drawn as yet. Among the results obtained during the next few years, those of
Arthur Llewellyn Hughes, J. J. Thomson’s last student, are of particular interest.
Hughes found a linear E-v relation and a value for the slope parameter that
varied from 4.9 to 5.7 X 10"^^, depending on the nature of the irradiated material
[H5]. These and other results were critically reviewed in 1913 and technical res-
ervations about Hughes’s results were expressed [PIO]. However, soon thereafter
Jeans stated in his important survey of the theory of radiation [J3] that ‘there is
almost general agreement’ that Eq. 19.24 holds true. Opinions were divided, but
evidently experimentalists were beginning to close in on the Einstein relation.

In the meantime, in his laboratory at the University of Chicago, Millikan had
already been at work on this problem for several years. He used visible light (a
set of lines in the mercury spectrum); various alkali metals served as targets (these
are photosensitive up to about 0.6^m). On April 24, 1914, and again on April 24,
1915, he reported on the progress of his results at meetings of the American Phys-
ical Society [Ml, M2]. A long paper published in 1916 gives the details of the

*In 1912, Einstein [ElOl noted that the heuristic principle could be applied not only to photonion-
ization but also in a quite similar way to photochemical processes.

382

THE QUANTUM THEORY

experiments and a summary of his beautiful results: Eq. 19.24 holds very well
and ‘Planck’s h has been photoelectrically determined with a precision of about
0.5% and is found to have the value h = 6.57 X 10“^^’

The Volta effect also confirmed the heuristic principle. This evidence came
from X-ray experiments performed in 1915 at Harvard by William Duane and
his assistant Franklin Hunt [DlJ. (Duane was one of the first biophysicists in
America. His interest in X-rays was due largely to the role they play in cancer
therapy.) Working with an X-ray tube operated at a constant potential K, they
found that the X-ray frequencies produced have a sharp upper limit v given by
eV - hv, as had been predicted by Einstein in 1906. This limiting frequency is
now called the Duane-Hunt limit. They also obtained the respectable value h
= 6.39 X lO-'l

In Section 18a, I mentioned some of Millikan’s reactions to these developments.
Duane and Hunt did not quote Einstein at all in their paper. I turn next to a
more systematic review of the responses to the light-quantum idea.

19f. Reactions to the light-Quantum Hypothesis

Comments by Planck, Nernst, Rubens, and Warburg written in 1913 when they
proposed Einstein for membership in the Prussian Academy will set the right tone
for what follows next. Their recommendation, which expressed the highest praise
for his achievements, concludes as follows. ‘In sum, one can say that there is hardly
one among the great problems in which modern physics is so rich to which Ein-
stein has not made a remarkable contribution. That he may sometimes have
missed the target in his speculations, as, for example, in his hypothesis of light-
quanta, cannot really be held too much against him, for it is not possible to intro-
duce really new ideas even in the most exact sciences without sometimes taking a
risk’[K51.

1. Einstein's Caution. Einstein’s letters provide a rich source of his insights
into physics and people. His struggles with the quantum theory in general and
with the light-quantum hypothesis in particular are a recurring theme. In 1951
he wrote to Besso, ‘Die ganzen 50 Jahre bewusster Griibelei haben mich der
Antwort der Frage “Was sind Lichtquanten” nicht naher gebracht’ [El 3).*

Throughout his scientific career, quantum physics remained a crisis phenome-
non to Einstein. His views on the nature of the crisis would change, but the crisis
would not go away. This led him to approach quantum problems with great cau-
tion in his writings— a caution already evident in the way the title of his March
paper was phrased. In the earliest years following his light-quantum proposal,
Einstein had good reasons to regard it as provisional. He could formulate it clearly
only in the domain /w//Ar»l, where Wien’s blackbody radiation law holds. Also,

♦All these fifty years of pondering have not brought me any closer to answering the question, What
are light quanta?

THE LIGHT-QUANTUM

383

he had used this law as an experimental fact without explaining it. Above all, it
was obvious to him from the start that grave tensions existed between his principle
and the wave picture of electromagnetic radiation — tensions which, in his own
mind, were resolved neither then nor later. A man as perfectly honest as Einstein
had no choice but to emphasize the provisional nature of his hypothesis. He did
this very clearly in 1911, at the first Solvay congress, where he said, ‘I insist on
the provisional character of this concept [light-quanta] which does not seem recon-
cilable with the experimentally verified consequences of the wave theory’ [El 2).

It is curious how often physicists believed that Einstein was ready to retract.
The first of these was his admirer von Laue, who wrote Einstein in 1906, ‘To me
at least, any paper in which probability considerations are applied to the vacuum
seems very dubious’[L7], and who wrote him again at the end of 1907, ‘I would
like to tell you how pleased I am that you have given up your light-quantum
theory’ [L8]. In 1912 Sommerfeld wrote, ‘Einstein drew the most far-reaching
consequences from Planck’s discovery [of the quantum of action] and transferred
the quantum properties of emission and absorption phenomena to the structure of
light energy in space without, as I believe, maintaining today his original point of
view [of 1905] in all its audacity’ [S3]. Referring to the light-quanta, Millikan
stated in 1913 that Einstein ‘gave ... up, I believe, some two years ago’ [M3],
and in 1916 he wrote, ‘Despite ... the apparently complete success of the Einstein
equation [for the photoeffect], the physical theory of which it was designed to be
the symbolic expression is found so untenable that Einstein himself, I believe, no
longer holds to it’ [M4].

It is my impression that the resistance to the light-quantum idea was so strong
that Einstein’s caution was almost hopefully mistaken for vacillation. However,
judging from his papers and letters, I find no evidence that he at any time with-
drew any of his statements made in 1905.

2. Electromagnetism: Free Fields and Interactions. Einstein’s March paper
is the second of the revolutionary papers on the old quantum theory. The first one
was, of course, Planck’s of December 1900 [P4]. Both papers contained proposals
that flouted classical concepts. Yet the resistance to Planck’s ideas — while cer-
tainly not absent — was much less pronounced and vehement than in the case of
Einstein. Why?

First, a general remark on the old quantum theory. Its main discoveries con-
cerned quantum rules for stationary states of matter and of pure radiation. By and
large, no comparable breakthroughs occurred in regard to the most difficult of all
questions concerning electromagnetic phenomena: the interaction between matter
and radiation. There, advances became possible only after the advent of quantum
field theory, when the concepts of particle creation and annihilation were formu-
lated. Since then, progress on the interaction problems has been enormous. Yet
even today this is not by any means a problem area on which the books are closed.

As we saw in Section 19a, when Planck introduced the quantum in order to
describe the spectral properties of pure radiation he did so by a procedure of quan-

384

THE QUANTUM THEORY

tization applied to matter, to his material oscillators. He was unaware of the fact
that his proposal implied the need for a revision of the classical radiation field
itself. His reasoning alleged to involve only a modification of the interaction
between matter and radiation. This did not seem too outlandish, since the inter-
action problem was full of obscurities in any event. By contrast, when Einstein
proposed the light-quantum he had dared to tamper with the Maxwell equations
for free fields, which were believed (with good reason) to be much better under-
stood. Therefore, it seemed less repugnant to accept Planck’s extravaganzas than
Einstein’s.

This difference in assessment of the two theoretical issues, one raised by Planck,
one by Einstein, is quite evident in the writings of the leading theorists of the day.
Planck himself had grave reservations about light-quanta. In 1907 he wrote to
Einstein:

I am not seeking the meaning of the quantum of action [light-quanta] in the
vacuum but rather in places where absorption and emission occur, and [I]
assume that what happens in the vacuum is rigorously described by Maxwell’s
equations. [PI 1]

A remark by Planck at a physics meeting in 1909 vividly illustrates his and others’
predilections for ‘leaving alone’ the radiation field and for seeking the resolution
of the quantum paradoxes in the interactions:

I believe one should first try to move the whole difficulty of the quantum theory
to the domain of the interaction between matter and radiation. [PI 2]

In that same year, Lorentz expressed his belief in ‘Planck’s hypothesis of the
energy elements’ but also his strong reservations regarding ‘light-quanta which
retain their individuality in propagation’ [L9].

Thus by the end of the first decade of the twentieth century, many leading
theorists were prepared to accept the fact that the quantum theory was here to
stay. However, the Maxwell theory of the free radiation field, pure and simple,
provided neither room for modification (it seemed) nor a place to hide one’s igno-
rance, in contrast with the less transparent situation concerning the interaction
between matter and radiation. This position did not change much until the 1920s
and remained one of the deepest roots of resistance to Einstein’s ideas.

3. The Impact of Experiment. The first three revolutionary papers on the
old quantum theory were those by Planck [P4], Einstein [E5], and Bohr [B2]. All
three contained proposals that flouted classical concepts. Yet the resistance to the
ideas of Planck and Bohr — while certainly not absent — was much less pro-
nounced and vehement than in the case of Einstein. Why? The answer: because
of the impact of experiment.

Physicists — good physicists — enjoy scientific speculation in private but tend to
frown upon it when done in public. They are conservative revolutionaries, resist-
ing innovation as long as possible and at all intellectual cost, but embracing it

the light-quantum

385

when the evidence is incontrovertible. If they do not, physics tends to pass them
by.

I often argued with Einstein about reliance on experimental evidence for con-
firmation of fundamental new ideas. In Chapter 25, I shall have more to say on
that issue. Meanwhile, I shall discuss next the influence of experimental devel-
opments on the acceptance of the ideas of Planck, Bohr, and Einstein.

First, Planck. His proximity to the first-rate experiments on blackbody radia-
tion being performed at the Physikalisch Technische Reichsanstalt in Berlin was
beyond doubt a crucial factor in his discovery of 1900 (though it would be very
wrong to say that this was the only decisive factor). In the first instance, experi-
ment also set the pace for the acceptance of the Planck formula. One could (and
did and should) doubt his derivation, as, among others, Einstein did in 1905. At
the same time, however, neither Einstein nor any one else denied the fact that
Planck’s highly nontrivial universal curve admirably fitted the data. Somehow he
had to be doing something right.

Bohr’s paper [B2] of April 1913 about the hydrogen atom was revolutionary
and certainly not at once generally accepted. But there was no denying that his
expression 2Tr^ e^m/h}c for the Rydberg constant of hydrogen was remarkably
accurate (to within 6 per cent, in 1913). When, in October 1913, Bohr was able
to give for the ratio of the Rydberg constants for singly ionized helium and hydro-
gen an elementary derivation that was in agreement with experiment to five sig-
nificant figures [B31, it became even more clear that Bohr’s ideas had a great deal
to do with the real world. When told of the helium/hydrogen ratio, Einstein is
reported to have said of Bohr’s work, ‘Then it is one of the greatest discoveries’
[H6|.

Einstein himself had little to show by comparison.

To be sure, he had mentioned a number of experimental consequences of his
hypothesis in his 1905 paper. But he had no curves to fit, no precise numbers to
show. He had noted that in the photoelectric elTect the electron energy E is con-
stant for fixed light frequency v. This explained Lenard’s results. But Lenard’s
measurements were not so precise as to prevent men like J. J. Thomson and Som-
merfeld from giving alternative theories of the photoelTect of a kind in which Len-
ard’s law does not rigorously apply [S4]. Einstein’s photoelectric equation, E =
hv — P, predicts a linear relation between E and At the time Einstein proposed
his heuristic principle, no one knew how E depended on beyond the fact that
one increases with the other. Unlike Bohr and Planck, Einstein had to wait a
decade before he saw one of his predictions, the linear E~v relation, vindicated,
as was discussed in the previous section. One immediate and salutary effect of
these experimental discoveries was that alternative theories of the photoeffect van-
ished from the scene.

Yet Einstein’s apartness did not end even then.

I have already mentioned that Millikan relished his result on the photoeffect
but declared that, even so, the light quantum theory ‘seems untenable’ [M51. In

386

THE QUANTUM THEORY

1918, Rutherford commented on the Duane- Hunt results, There is at present no
physical explanation possible of this remarkable connection between energy and
frequency’ [R7]. One can go on. The fact of the matter is that, even after Ein-
stein’s photoelectric law was accepted, almost no one but Einstein himself would
have anything to do with light-quanta.

This went on until the early 1920s, as is best illustrated by quoting the citation
for Einstein’s Nobel prize in 1922: To Albert Einstein for his services to theoret-
ical physics and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect’
[A2]. This is not only an historic understatement but also an accurate reflection
on the consensus in the physics community.

To summarize: the enormous resistance to light-quanta found its roots in the
particle-wave paradoxes. The resistance was enhanced because the light-quan-
tum idea seemed to overthrow that part of electromagnetic theory believed to be
best understood: the theory of the free field. Moreover, experimental support was
long in coming and, even after the photoelectric effect predictions were verified,
light-quanta were still largely considered unacceptable. Einstein’s own emphasis
on the provisional nature of the light-quantum hypothesis tended to strengthen
the reservations held by other physicists.

Right after March 1905, Einstein sat down and wrote his doctoral thesis. Then
came Brownian motion, then special relativity, and then the equivalence principle.
He did not return to the light-quantum until 1909. However, in 1906 he made
another important contribution to quantum physics, his theory of specific heats.
This will be the subject of the next chapter. We shall return to the light-quantum
in Chapter 21.

References

Al. A. B. Arons and M. B. Pcppard, Am. /. P/iys. 33, 367 (1965).

A2. S. Arrhenius in Nobel Lectures in Physics, Vol. 1, p. 478. Elsevier, New York,
1965.

Bl. U. Benz, Arnold Sommerjeld, p. 74. Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschajt, Stutt-
gart, 1975.

B2. N. Bohr, Phil. Mag. 26, 1 (1913).

B3. , Nature (1913).

Cl. P. Curie and G. Sagnac, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris 130, 1013 (1900).

Dl. W. Duane and F. L. Hunt, Phys. Rev. 6, 166 (1915).

El. A. Einstein, Forschungen und Fortschritte 5, 248 (1929).

E2. , Naturw. 1, 1077 (1913).

E3. , in Albert Einstein: Philosopher- Scientist (P. A. Schilpp, Ed.), p. 2. Tudor,

New York, 1949.

» in Out of My Later Years, p. 229. Philosophical Library, New York, 1950.

E5. ,AdP\7, 132 (1905).

E6. ,Naturw. 1, 1077 (1913).

E7. ,^(fP14,354(1904).

THE LIGHT-QUANTUM

387

E8. ,i4dfP20, 199 (1906).

E9. J. Elster and H. Geitel, AdP 166 (1890).

ElO. A. Einstein, AdP37, 832 (1912); 38, 881, 888 (1912).

Ell. , Phys. Zeitschr. 10, 817 (1909).

El 2. , in Proceedings of the First Solvay Congress (P. Langevin and M. de Broglie,

Eds.), p. 443. Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1912.

El 3. , letter to M. Besso, December 12, 1951, EB p. 453.

HI. G. Hcttner, Naturw. 10, 1033 (1922).

H2. A. Hermann, Friihgeschichte der Quantentheorie 1899-1913, p. 32. Mosbach,
Baden, 1969.

H3. H. Hertz, AdP 33, 983 (1887).

H4. W. Hallwachs, AdP 33, 310 (1888).

H5. A. L. Hughes, Trans. Roy. Soc. 212, 205 (1912).

H6. G. de Hevesy, letter to E. Rutherford, October 14, 1913. Quoted in A. S. Eve,
Rutherford, p. 226. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1939.

Jl. J. H. Jeans, Phil. Mag. 10, 91 (1905).

J2. , Nature 72, 293 (1905).

J3. , The Electrician, London, 1914, p. 59.

Kl, G. Kirchhoff, Monatsber. Berlin, 1859, p. 662.

K2. , Ann. Phys. Chem. 109, 275 (1860)

K3. H.Kangro, History of Planck's Radiation Law. Taylor and Francis, London, 1976.
K4. M. Klein in History of Twentieth Century Physics. Academic Press, New York
1977.

K5. G. Kirsten and H. Kbrber, Physiker uber Phystker, p. 201. Akademie Verlag Ber-
lin, 1975.

LI. O. Lummer and E. Pringsheim, Verb. Deutsch. Phys. Ges. 2, 163 (1900).

L2. S. P. Langley, Phil. Mag. 21, 394 (1886).

L3. H. A. Lorentz in Collected Works, Vol. 3, p. 155. Nyhoff, the Hague, 1936.

L4. P. Lenard and M. Wolf, AdP 37, 443 (1889).

L5. ,AdP%, 149 (1902).

L6. R. Ladenburg, fahrb. Rad. Elektr. 17, 93, 273 (1909).

L7. M. von Laue, letter to A. Einstein, June 2, 1906.

L8. , letter to A. Einstein, December 27, 1907.

L9. H. A. Lorentz, letter to W. Wien, April 12, 1909. Quoted in [H2], p. 68.
Ml. R. A. Millikan, Phys. Rev. 4, 73 (1914).

M2. , Phys. Rev. 6, 55 (1915).

M3. , 5’aence 37, 119(1913).

M4. , Phys. Rev. 7, 355 (1916).

M5. , Phys. Rev. 7, 18 (1916).

PI. W. Paschen, AdP^(i, 662 (1897).

P2. M. Planck in M. Planck, Phystkalische Abhandlungen und Vortrdge (M. von
Laue, E-d.), Vol. 3, p. 374. Vieweg, Braunschweig, 1958.

> Verh. Deutsch. Phys. Ges. 2, 202 (1900): Abhandlungen, Vol. 1, p. 687.

» Verh. Deutsch. Phys. Ges. 2, 237 (1900); Abhandlungen, Vol. 1, p. 698.

— “> AdP 1, 69 (1900); Abhandlungen, Vol. 1, p. 614.

P6. W. Pauli, Collected Scientific Papers, Vol. 1, pp. 602-7. Intersciencc, New York,
1964.

388

THE QUANTUM THEORY

P7. M. Planck, AdP4, 553 (1901); Abhandlungen, Vol. 1, p. 717.

P8. E. Pringsheim, Arch. Math. Phys. 7, 236 (1903).

P9. M. Planck, AdP 4y 564 (1901); Abhandlungen, Vol. 1, p. 728.

PIO. R. Pohl and L. Pringsheim, Phil. Mag. 26, 1017 (1913).

Pll. M. Planck, letter to A. Einstein, July 6, 1907.

PI 2. , Phys. Zeitschr. 10, 825 (1909).

Rl. H. Rubens and F. Kurlbaum, PAW, 1900, p. 929.

R2. and E. F. Nichols, AdP^Qy 418 (1897).

R3. E. Rutherford and H. Geiger, Proc. Roy. Soc. A81, 162 (1908).

R4. J. W. S. Rayleigh, Phil. Mag. 49, 539 (1900).

R5. , Nature 72, 54 (1905).

R6. , Nature, 72, 243 (1905).

R7. E. Rutherford, J. Rdntgen Soc. 14, 81 (1918).

51. J. Stefan, Sttzungsber. Ak. Wtss. Wien, Math. Natunu. Kl, 2 Abt. 79, 391 (1879).

52. E. von Schweidler, /a/ir6. Rad. Elektr. 1, 358 (1904).

53. A. Sommerfeld, Verb. Ges. Deutsch. Naturf. Arzte 83, 31 (1912).

54. R. H. Stuewer, The Compton Effect, Chap. 2. Science History, New York, 1975.
Tl. J. J. Thomson, Phil. Mag. 48, 547 (1899).

T2. , Phil. Mag. 44, 269 (1897).

T3. . Phil. Mag. 48, 547 (1899).

Wl. W. Wien, PAW, 1893, p. 55.

W2. , AdP 58, 662 (1896).

Einstein and Specific Heats

The more success the quantum theory has, the sillier it looks.

A. Einstein in 1912

20a. Specific Heats in the Nineteenth Century

By the end of the first decade of the twentieth century, three major quantum the-
oretical discoveries had been made. They concern the blackbody radiation law, the
light-quantum postulate, and the quantum theory of the specific heat of solids. All
three arose from statistical considerations. There are, however, striking differences
in the time intervals between these theoretical advances and their respective exper-
imental justification. Planck formulated his radiation law in an uncommonly short
time after learning about experiments in the far infrared that complemented ear-
lier results at higher frequencies. It was quite a different story with the light-
quantum. Einstein’s hypothesis was many years ahead of its decisive experimental
tests. As we shall see next, the story is quite different again in the case of specific
heats. Einstein’s first paper on the subject [El], submitted in November 1906,
contains the qualitatively correct explanation of an anomaly that had been
observed as early as 1840: the low value of the specific heat of diamond at room
temperature. Einstein showed that this can be understood as a quantum effect.
His paper contains one graph, the specific heat of diamond as a function of tem-
perature, reproduced here below, which represents the first published graph in
the history of the quantum theory of the solid state. It also represents one of only
three instances I know of in which Einstein published a graph to compare theory
with experiment (another example will be mentioned in Section 20b).

In order to recognize an anomaly, one needs a theory or a rule or at least a
prejudice. As I just mentioned, peculiarities in specific heats were diagnosed more
than half a century before Einstein explained them. It was also known well before
1906 that specific heats of gases exhibited even more curious properties. In what
way was diamond considered so exceptional? And what about other substances?
For a perspective on Einstein’s contributions, it is necessary to sketch the answer
to these questions. I therefore begin with a short account of specific heats in the
nineteenth century.

389

390

THE QUANTUM THEORY

❖

^ 0,1 0,2 0,3 0 ,fy 0,5 0,6 0,1 0.8 0,9 1,0

The first published graph dealing with the quantum theory of the solid state: Einstein’s
expression for the specific heat of solids [given in Eq. 20.4] plotted versus hv/kT. The
little circles are Weber’s experimental data for diamond. Einstein’s best fit to Weber’s
measurements corresponds to hv/k s 1300K.

■

o ..

■

—

— / — ■'

The story begins in 1819, when two young Frenchmen, Pierre Louis Dulong
and Alexis Ther^ Petit, made an unexpected discovery during the researches in
thermometry on which they had been jointly engaged for a number of years. For
a dozen metals and for sulfur (all at room temperature), they found that c, the
specific heat per gram-atom* (referred to as the specific heat hereafter), had prac-
tically the same value, approximately 6 cal/mole-deg [Plj. They did, of course,
not regard this as a mere coincidence: *One is allowed to infer [from these data]
the following law: the atoms of all simple bodies [elements] have exactly the same
heat capacity.' They did not restrict this statement to elements in solid form, but
initially believed that improved experiments might show their law to hold for gases
also. By 1830 it was clear, however, that the rule could at best apply only to solids.

Much remained to be learned about atomic weights in those early days of mod-
em chemistry. In fact, in several instances Dulong and Petit correctly halved val-
ues of atomic weights obtained earlier by other means in order to bring their data
into line with their law [FI]. For many years, their rule continued to be an
important tool for atomic weight determinations.

•To be precise, these and other measurements on solids to be mentioned hereafter refer to Cp at
atmospheric pressure. Later on, a comparison will be made with theoretical values for c.. This
requires a tiny correction to go from Cp to c,. This correction will be ignored (LI ].

EINSTEIN AND SPECIFIC HEATS

391

It became clear rather soon, however, that even for solid elements the Dulong-
Petit rule is not as general as its propx)unders had thought. Amedeo Avogadro was
one of the first to remark on deviations in the case of carbon, but his measurements
were not very precise [Al].* Matters got more serious in 1840, when two Swiss
physicists, Auguste de la Rive and Francois Marcet, reported on studies of carbon.
In particular, they had obtained ‘not without difficulty and expense’ an amount
of diamond powder sufficient to experiment with, for which they found c ^ \ A
[RlJ. At almost the same time, diamond was also being studied by Henri Victor
Regnault, who more than any other physicist contributed to the experimental
investigations of specific heats in the nineteenth century. His value: c 1.8 [R2].
Regnault’s conclusion about carbon was unequivocal: it is ‘a complete exception
among the simple bodies: it does not satisfy the general law which (relates] specific
heats and atomic weights.’ During the next twenty years, he continued his studies
of specific heats and found many more deviations from the general law, though
none as large as for diamond.

We now move to the 1870s, when Heinrich Friedrich Weber,** then in Berlin,
made the next advance. He began by re-analyzing the data of de la Rive and
Marcet and those of Regnault and came to the correct conclusion that the different
values for the specific heat of diamond found by these authors were not due to
systematic errors. However, the de la Rive- Marcet value referred to a tempera-
ture average from 3® to 14°C whereas Regnault’s value was an average from 8®
to 98°C. Weber noted that both experiments could be correct if the specific heat
of carbon were to vary with temperature [Wlj! Tiny variations in specific heats
with temperature had long been known for some substances (for example, water)
(Nlj. In contrast, Weber raised the issue of a very strong temperature depen-
dence — a new and bold idea. His measurements for twelve different temperatures
between 0® and 200® C confirmed his conjecture: for diamond c varied by a factor
of 3 over this range. He wanted to continue his observations, but it was March
and, alas, there was no more snow for his ice calorimeter. He announced that he
would go on with his measurements ‘as soon as meteorological circumstances per-
mit.’ The next time we hear from Weber is in 1875, when he presented his beau-
tiful specific heat measurements for boron, silicon, graphite, and diamond, from
-100® to 10(X)®C [W2]. For the case of diamond, c varied by a factor of 15
between these limits.

By 1872, Weber had already made a conjecture which he confirmed in 1875:
at high T one gets close to the Dulong- Petit value. In Weber’s words, ‘The three

*In 1833 Avogadro obtained c 3 for carbon at room temperature. This value is too high. Since
it was accidentally just half the Dulong-Petit value, Avogadro incorrectly conjectured ‘that one must
reduce the atom [i.c., the atomic weight] of sulfur and metals in general by [a factor of] one half
lAl].

“^Weber was Einstein’s teacher, whom we encountered in Chapter 3. Einstein’s notebooks of
Weber’s lectures arc preserved. They do not indicate that as a student Einstein knew of Weber’s
results.

392

THE QUANTUM THEORY

curious exceptions [C, B, Si] to the Dulong- Petit law which were until now a
cause for despair have been eliminated: the Dulong- Petit law for the specific heats
of solid elements has become an unexceptional rigorous law’ [W2]. This is, of
course, not quite true, but it was distinct progress. The experimental points on
page 390 are Weber’s points of 1875.*

In 1872, not only Weber, but also a second physicist, made the conjecture that
the Dulong- Petit value c ^ 6 would be reached by carbon at high temperatures:
James Dewar. His road to the carbon problem was altogether difTerent: for rea-
sons having to do with solar temperatures, Dewar became interested in the boiling
point of carbon. This led him to high-temperature experiments, from which he
concluded [Dl] that the mean specific heat of carbon between 0° and 2000° C
equals about 5 and that ‘the true specific heat [per gram] at 2000° C must be at
least 0.5, so that at this temperature carbon would agree with the law of Dulong
and Petit.’**

Dewar’s most important contribution to our subject deals with very low tem-
peratures. He had liquefied hydrogen in 1898. In 1905 he reported on the first
specific heat measurements in the newly opened temperature region. It will come
as no surprise that diamond was among the first substances he chose to study. For
this case, he found the very low average value c ^ 0.05 in the interval from 20
to 85 K. ‘An almost endless field of research in the determination of specific heats
is now opened,’ Dewar remarked in this paper [D2]. His work is included in a
detailed compilation by Alfred Wigand [W3] of the literature on the specific heats
of solid elements that appeared in the same issue of the Annalen der Physxk as
Einstein’s first paper on the quantum theory of specific heats. We are therefore
up to date in regard to the experimental developments preceding Einstein’s work.

The theoretical interpretation of the Dulong- Petit rule is due to Boltzmann. In
1866 he grappled unsuccessfully with this problem [B2]. It took another ten years
before he recognized that this rule can be understood with the help of the equi-
partition theorem of classical statistical mechanics. The simplest version of that
theorem had been known since 1860: the average kinetic energy equals kT/2 for
each degree of freedom.! In 1871 Boltzmann showed that the average kinetic
energy equals the average potential energy for a system of particles each one of
which oscillates under the influence of external harmonic forces [B4]. In 1876 he
applied these results to a three-dimensional lattice [B5]. This gave him an average
energy 37?T’ ^ 6 cal/mol. Hence c„, the specific heat at constant volume, equals

*By the end of the nineteenth century, it was clear that the decrease in c with temperature occurs
far more generally than just for C, B, and Si (B1 ).

••There followed a controversy about priorities between Weber and Dewar, but only a very mild
one by nineteenth century standards. In any event, there is no question that the issues were settled
only by Weber’s detailed measurements in 1875.

fThis result (phrased somewhat differently) is due to John James Waterston and Maxwell [Ml]
For the curious story of Waterston’s contribution, see |B31.

EINSTEIN AND SPECIFIC HEATS

393

6 cal/mordeg. Thus, after half a century, the Dulong-Petit value had found a
theoretical justification! As Boltzmann himself put it, his result was in good agree-
ment with experiment ‘for all simple solids with the exception of carbon, boron*
and silicon.’ Boltzmann went on to speculate that these anomalies might be a con-
sequence of a loss of degrees of freedom due to a ‘sticking together’ at low tem-
peratures of atoms at neighboring lattice points. This suggestion was elaborated
by others [R3] and is mentioned by Wigand in his 1906 review as the best expla-
nation of this efTect. I mention this incorrect speculation only in order to stress one
important point: before Einstein’s paper of 1906, it was not realized that the dia-
mond anomaly was to be understood in terms of the failure (or, rather, the inap-
plicability) of the classical equipartition theorem. Einstein was the first one to state
this fact clearly.

By sharp contrast, it was well appreciated that the equipartition theorem was
in trouble when applied to the specific heat of gases. This was a matter of grave
concern to the nineteenth century masters. Even though this is a topic that does
not directly bear on Einstein’s work in 1906, 1 believe it will be useful to complete
the nineteenth century picture with a brief explanation of why gases caused so
much more aggravation.

The reasons were clearly stated by Maxwell in a lecture given in 1875:

The spectroscope tells us that some molecules can execute a great many differ-
ent kinds of vibrations. They must therefore be systems of a very considerable
degree of complexity, having far more than six variables [the number charac-
teristic for a rigid body] Every additional variable increases the specific heat.

. . Every additional degree of complexity which we attribute to the molecule
can only increase the difficulty of reconciling the observed with the calculated
value of the specific heat. I have now put before you what I consider the greatest
difficulty yet encountered by the molecular theory. [M2]

Maxwell’s conundrum was the mystery of the missing vibrations. The follow-
ing oversimplified picture suffices to make clear what troubled him. Consider a
molecule made up of n structureless atoms. There are 3n degrees of freedom,
three for translations, at most three for rotations, and the rest for vibrations. The
kinetic energy associated with each degree of freedom contributes kT/2 to c^. In
addition, there is a positive contribution from the potential energy. Maxwell was
saying that this would almost always lead to specific heats which are too large. As
a consequence of Maxwell’s lecture, attention focused on monatomic gases, and,
in 1876, the equipartition theorem scored an important success: it found that c^/
c, ^ 5/3 for mercury vapor, in accordance with = 3/?/2 and the ideal gas rule
S “■ Cy = /? [Klj. It had been known since the days of Regnault** that several

The good professor wrote bromine but meant boron.

*A detailed review of the specific heats of gases from the days of Lavoisier until 1896 is found in
Wullner’s textbook [W4].

394

THE QUANTUM THEORY

diatomic molecules (including hydrogen) have a close to 5R/2. It was not yet
recognized by Maxwell that this is the value prescribed by the equipartition theo-
rem for a rigid dumbbell molecule; that observation was first made by Boltzmann
[B5]. The equipartition theorem was therefore very helpful, yet, on the whole, the
specific heat of gases remained a murky subject.

Things were getting worse. Already before 1900, instances were being found in
which Cv depended (weakly) on temperature [W4], in flagrant contradiction with
classical concepts. No wonder these results troubled Boltzmann. His idea about
the anomalies for the specific heats of solids could not work for gases. Molecules
in dilute gases hardly stick together! In 1895 he suggested a way out: the equi-
partition theorem is correct for gases but does not apply to the combined gas-
aether system because there is no thermal equilibrium: ‘The entire ether has not
had time to come into thermal equilibrium with the gas molecules and has in no
way attained the state which it would have if it were enclosed for an infinitely
long time in the same vessel with the molecules of the gas’ [B6].

Kelvin took a different position; he felt that the classical equipartition theorem
was wrong. He stuck to this belief despite the fact that his attempts to find flaws
in the theoretical derivation of the theorem had of course remained unsuccessful.
‘It is . . . not quite possible to rest contented with the mathematical verdict not
proved and the experimental verdict not true in respect to the Boltzmann -Max-
well doctrine,’ he said in a lecture given in 1900 before the Royal Institution [K2].
He summarized his position by saying that ‘the simplest way to get rid of the
difficulties is to abandon the doctrine’ [K3).

Lastly, there was the position of Rayleigh: the proof of the equipartition theo-
rem is correct and there is thermal equilibrium between the gas molecules and the
aether. Therefore there is a crisis. ‘What would appear to be wanted is some
escape from the destructive simplicity of the general conclusion [derived from
equipartition]’ [R4].

Such was the state of affairs when Einstein took on the specific heat problem.

20b. Einstein

Until 1906, Planck’s quantum had played a role only in the rather isolated prob-
lem of blackbody radiation. Einstein’s work on specific heats [El] is above all
important because it made clear for the first time that quantum concepts have a
far more general applicability. His 1906 paper is also unusual because here we
meet an Einstein who is quite prepared to use a model he knows to be approxi-
mate in order to bring home a point of principle. Otherwise this paper is much
like his other innovative articles: succinctly directed to the heart of the matter.

Earlier in 1906 Einstein had come to accept Planck’s relation (Eq. 19.11)
between p and the equilibrium energy 6/ as a new physical assumption (see Sec-
tion 19d). We saw in Section 19a that Planck had obtained the expression

EINSTEIN AND SPECIFIC HEATS

395

U(v,T)

kkT

exp{ - 1

( 20 . 1 )

by introducing a prescription that modified Boltzmann’s way of counting states.
Einstein’s specific heat paper begins with a new prescription for arriving at the
same result. He wrote U in the form*

J Ee-^^^ME,i>)dE

U(p,T) = -j: (20.2)

J e-^^"u(E^)dE

The exponential factor denotes the statistical probability for the energy E. The
weight factor w contains the dynamic information about the density of states
between E and E + dE. For the case in hand (linear oscillators), u) is trivial in
the classical theory: w{E,v) = 1. This yields the equipartition result U — kT.
Einstein proposed a new form for o). Let € —hv. Then oj shall be different from
zero only when m < E < nt a, n = 0, 1 , 2, . . . ‘where a is infinitely small
compared with and such that

(20.3)

for all n, where the value of the constant A is irrelevant. Mathematically, this is
the forerunner of the 6-function! Today we write (i)iE,v) = ^ d(E — nhv).

From Eqs. 20.2 and 20.3 we recover Eq. 20.1. This new formulation is impor-
tant because for the first time the statistical and the dynamic aspects of the problem
are clearly separated. ‘Degrees of freedom must be weighed and not counted,’ as
Sommerfeld put it later [SI).

In commenting on his new derivation of Eq. 20.1, Einstein remarked, ‘I believe
we should not content ourselves with this result’ [El]. If we must modify the the-
ory of periodically vibrating structures in order to account for the properties of
radiation, are we then not obliged to do the same for other problems in the molec-
ular theory of heat, he asked. ‘In my opinion, the answer cannot be in doubt. If
Planck’s theory of radiation goes to the heart of the matter, then we must also
expect to find contradictions between the present [i.e., classical) kinetic theory and
experiment in other areas of the theory of heat — contradictions that can be
resolved by following this new path. In my opinion, this expectation is actually
realized.’

Then Einstein turned to the specific heat of solids, introducing the following
niodel of a three-dimensional crystal lattice. The atoms on the lattice points oscil-
late independently, isotropically, harmonically, and with a single frequency v

*I do not always use the notations of the original paper.

396

THE QUANTUM THEORY

around their equilibrium positions (volume changes due to heating and contri-
butions to the specific heat due to the motions of electrons within the atoms are
neglected, Einstein notes). He emphasized that one should of course not expect
rigorous answers because of all these approximations.

The First Generalization. Einstein applied Eq. 20.2 to his three-dimensional
oscillators. In thermal equilibrium, the total energy of a gram-atom of oscillators
equals 3NU(PyT)y where U is given by Eq. 20.1 and N is Avogadro’s number.
Hence,

(20.4)

which is Einstein’s specific heat formula.

The Second Generalization. For reasons of no particular interest to us now,
Einstein initially believed that his oscillating lattice points were electrically
charged ions. A few months later, he published a correction to his paper, in which
he observed that this was an unnecessary assumption [E2] (In Planck’s case, the
linear oscillators had of course to be charged!). Einstein’s correction freed the
quantum rules (in passing, one might say) from any specific dependence on elec-
tromagnetism.

Einstein’s specific heat formula yields, first of all, the Dulong- Petit rule in the
high-temperature limit. It is also the first recorded example of a specific heat for-
mula with the property

Cy(7') — 0 asT— 0

(20.5)

As we shall see in the next section, Eq. 20.5 played an important role in the
ultimate formulation of Nernst’s heat theorem.

Einstein’s specific heat formula has only one parameter. The only freedom is
the choice of the frequency* i/, or, equivalently, the ‘Einstein temperature’ Tg, the
value of T for which ^ = 1. As was mentioned before, Einstein compared his
formula with Weber’s points for diamond. Einstein’s fit can be expressed in tem-
perature units by Tg « 1300 K, for which ‘the points lie indeed almost on the
curve.’ This high value of Tg makes clear why a light and hard substance like
diamond exhibits quantum effects at room temperature (by contrast, T^g ^=55 70 K
for lead).

By his own account, Einstein took Weber’s data from the Landolt-Bornstein
tables. He must have used the 1905 edition (L2), which would have been readily
available in the patent office. These tables do not yet contain the earlier-mentioned
results by Dewar in 1905. Apparently Einstein was not aware of these data in
1906 (although they were noted in that year by German physicists [W3)). Perhaps
that was fortunate. In any case, Dewar’s value of Cy 0.05 for diamond refers

•In a later paper, Einstein attempted to relate this frequency to the compressibility of the material
|E31.

EINSTEIN AND SPECIFIC HEATS

397

to an average over the range f ^ 0.02-0.07. This value is much too large to be
accommodated (simultaneously with Weber’s points) by Einstein’s Eq. 20.4: the
exponential drop of c^ 2 iS T 0, predicted by that equation, is far too steep.

Einstein did become aware of this discrepancy in 1911, when the much
improved measurements by Nernst showed that Eq. 20.4 fails at low T [N2i.
Nernst correctly ascribed the disagreement to the incorrectness of the assumption
that the lattice vibrations are monochromatic. Einstein himself explored some
modifications of this assumption [E4). The correct temperature dependence at low
temperatures was first obtained by Peter Debye; for nonmetallic substances,

-+ 0 as [D3]. Einstein had ended his active research on the specific heats of
solids by the time the work of Debye and the more exact treatment of lattice
vibrations by Max Born and Theodore von Karman appeared [B7]. These further
developments need therefore not be discussed here.

However, in 1913 Einstein returned once again to specific heats, this time to
consider the case of gases. This came about as the result of important experimental
advances on this subject which had begun in 1912 with a key discovery by Arnold
Eucken. It had long been known by then that ^ 5 for molecular hydrogen at
room temperature. Eucken showed that this value decreased with decreasing T
and that ^ 3 at T « 60 K [E5]. As is well known today, this effect is due to
the freezing of the two rotational degrees of freedom of this molecule at these low
temperatures. In 1913 Einstein correctly surmised that the effect was related to
the behavior of these rotations and attempted to give a quantitative theory. In a
paper on this subject, we find another instance of curve fitting by Einstein [E6).
However, this time he was wrong. His answer depended in an essential way on
the incorrect assumption that rotational degrees of freedom have a zero point
energy,*

In 1925 Einstein was to turn his attention one last time to gases at very low
temperatures, as we shall see in Section 23b.

20c. Nemst: Solvay I**

‘As the temperature tends to absolute zero, the entropy of a system tends to a
universal constant that is independent of chemical or physical composition or of
other parameters on which the entropy may depend. The constant can be taken
to be zero.’ This modern general formulation of the third law of thermodynamics
implies (barring a few exceptional situations) that specific heats tend to zero as T

0 (see [H2]). The earliest and most primitive version of the 'heat theorem’ was
presented in 1905, before Einstein wrote his first paper on specific heats. The final

In 1920 Einstein announced a forthcoming paper on the moment of inertia of molecular hydrogen
1E7) That paper was never published, however,

**The preparation of this section was much facilitated by my access to an article by Klein (K4] and
a book by Hermann (HI).

398

THE QUANTUM THEORY

form of the third law was arrived at and accepted only after decades of controversy
and confusion.* For the present account, it is important to note the influence of
Einstein’s work on this evolution.

On December 23, 1905, Hermann Walther Nernst read a paper at the Goet-
tingen Academy entitled ‘On the Computation of Chemical Equilibria from Ther-
mal Measurements.* In this work he proposed a new hypothesis for the thermal
behavior of liquids and solids at absolute zero [N3]. For our purposes, the 1905
hypothesis is of particular interest as it applies to a chemically homogeneous sub-
stance. For this case, the hypothesis states in essence that the entropy difference
between two modifications of such a substance (for example, graphite and dia-
mond in the case of carbon) tends to zero as T 0. Therefore it does not exclude
a nonzero specific heat at zero temperatures. In fact, in 1906 Nernst assumed that
all specific heats tend to 1.5 cal/deg at T = 0 [N3, N4]. However, he noted that
he had no proof of this statement because of the absence of sufficient low-temper-
ature data. He stressed that it was a ‘most urgent task’ to acquire these [N3].
Nemst’s formidable energies matched his strong determination. He and his col-
laborators embarked on a major program for measuring specific heats at low tem-
peratures. This program covered the same temperature domain already studied
by Dewar, but the precision was much greater and more substances were exam-
ined. One of these was diamond, obviously.

By 1910 Nernst was ready to announce his first results [N5]. From his curves,
‘one gains the clear impression that the specific heats become zero or at least take
on very small values at very low temperatures. This is in qualitative agreement
with the theory developed by Herr Einstein. . .’

Thus, the order of events was as follows. Late in 1905 Nernst stated a primitive
version of the third law. In 1906 Einstein gave the first example of a theory that
implies that Cy 0 as T 0 for solids. In 1910 Nernst noted the compatibility
of Einstein’s result with ‘the heat theorem developed by me.’ However, it was
actually Planck who, later in 1910, took a step that ‘not only in form but also in
content goes a bit beyond [the formulation given by) Nernst himself.’ In Planck’s
formulation, the specific heat of solids and liquids does go to zero as T 0 [P2].
It should be stressed that neither Nernst nor Planck gave a proof of the third law.
The status of this law was apparently somewhat confused, as is clear from Ein-
stein’s remark in 1914 that ‘all attempts to derive Nernst’s theorem theoretically
in a thermodynamic way with the help of the experimental fact that the specific
heat vanishes at T = 0 must be considered to have failed.’ Einstein went on to
remark — rightly so — that the quantum theory is indispensable for an understand-
ing of this theorem [E8]. In an earlier letter to Ehrenfest, he had been sharply
critical of the speculations by Nernst and Planck [E9].

Nemst’s reference to Einstein in his paper of 1910 was the first occasion on

•Simon has given an excellent historical survey of this development (S2].

EINSTEIN AND SPECIFIC HEATS

399

which he acknowledged the quantum theory in his publications. His newly
aroused interest in the quantum theory was, however, thoroughly pragmatic. In
an address (on the occasion of the birthday of the emperor), he said:

At this time, the quantum theory is essentially a computational rule, one may
well say a rule with most curious, indeed grotesque, properties. However, . . .
it has borne such rich fruits in the hands of Planck and Einstein that there is
now a scientific obligation to take a stand in its regard and to subject it to
experimental test.

He went on to compare Planck with Dalton and Newton [N6]. Also in 1911,
Nernst tried his hand at a needed modification of Einstein’s Eq. 20.4 [N7].

Nernst was a man of parts, a gifted scientist, a man with a sense for practical
applications, a stimulating influence on his students, and an able organizer. Many
people disliked him. But he commanded respect ^so long as his egocentric weakness
did not enter the picture’ [ElO). He now saw the need for a conference on the
highest level to deal with the quantum problems. His combined talents as well as
his business relations enabled him to realize this plan. He found the industrialist
Ernest Solvay willing to underwrite the conference. He planned the scientific pro-
gram in consultation with Planck and Lorentz. On October 29, 1911, the first
Solvay Conference convened. Einstein was given the honor of being the final
speaker. The title of his talk: ‘The Current Status of the Specific Heat Problem.’
He gave a beautiful review of this subject — and used the occasion to express his
opinion on the quantum theory of electromagnetic radiation as well. His contri-
butions to the latter topic are no doubt more profound than his work on specific
heats. Yet his work on the quantum theory of solids had a far greater immediate
impact and considerably enlarged the audience of those willing to take quantum
physics seriously.

Throughout the period discussed in the forgoing, the third law was applied
only to solids and liquids. Only in 1914 did Nernst dare to extend his theorem to
hold for gases as well. Eucken’s results on the specific heat of molecular hydrogen
were a main motivation for taking this bold step [N8]. Unlike the case for solids,
Nernst could not point to a convincing theoretical model of a gas with the property
Cy -♦ 0 as T 0. So it was to remain until 1925, when the first model of this
kind was found. Its discoverer: Einstein (Section 23b).

Einstein realized, of course, that his work on the specific heats of solids was a
step in the right direction. Perhaps that pleased him. It certainly puzzled him. In
1912 he wrote the following to a friend about his work on the specific heat of gases
at low temperatures:

In recent days, I formulated a theory on this subject. Theory is too presump-
tuous a word— it is only a groping without correct foundation. The more suc-
cess the quantum theory has, the sillier it looks. How nonphysicists would scofT
if they were able to follow the odd course of developments! [Ell]

400

THE QUANTUM THEORY

References

At. A. Avogadro, Ann. Chim. Phys. 55, 80 (1833), especially pp. 96-8.

Bl. U. Behn, ^JP48,708 (1893).

B2. L. Boltzmann, Wiener Ber. 53, 195 (1866). Reprinted in Wissenschajtliche Abhan-
dlugen von L. Boltzmann (F. Hasenohrl, Ed.), Vol. 1, p. 20, Reprinted by Chelsea,
New York, 1968. These collected works are referred to below as WA.

B3. S. G. Brush, The Kind of Motion We Call Heat, Vol. 1, Chap 3, Vol. 2, Chap. 10.
North Holland, Amsterdam, 1976.

B4. L. Boltzmann, Wiener Ber. 63, 679, (1871); WA, Vol. I, p. 259.

B5. , Wiener Ber. 74, 553, (1876); WA, Vol 2, p. 103.

B6. , Nature 51, 413, (1895); WA, Vol. 3, p. 535.

B7. M. Born and T. von Karman, Phys. Zeitschr. 13, 297, (1912), 14, 15 (1913).

Dl. J. Dewar, Phil. Mag. 44, 461 (1872).

D2. , Proc. Roy. Soc. London 76, 325 (1905).

D3. P. Debye, AdP 3% 789 (1912).

El. A. Einstein, AdP22, 180 (1907).

E2. , 22, 800 (1907).

E3. , AdP3i, 170 (1911).

E4. , ^df35, 679, (1911).

E5. A. Eucken, PAW, 1912, p 141.

E6. A. Einstein and O. Stern, AdP ^0^ 551 (1913)

E7. , PAW, 1920, p. 65

E8. , Verb. Deutsch. Phys. Ges. 16, 820 (1914).

E9. , letter to P. Ehrenfest, April 25, 1912.

ElO. , Sci. Monthly 54, 195 (1942).

Ell. , letter to H. Zangger, May 20, 1912.

FI. R. Fox, Brit. J. Hist. Sci. 4, 1 (1968)

HI. A. Hermann, Friihgeschichte der Quantentheorie , 1899-1913 Mosbach, Baden,
1969.

H2. K. Huang, Statistical Mechanics, p. 26. Wiley, New York, 1963.

Kl. A. Kundt and E. Warburg, AdP 157, 353 (1876).

K2. Kelvin, Baltimore Lectures, Sec. 27. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore,
1904.

K3. ,[K2],p. xvii.

K4. M. Klein, Science 148, 173 (1965).

LI. G. N. Lewis, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 29, 1165, 1516 (1907)

L2. H. Landolt and R. Bornstein, Physikalisch Chemische Tabellen (3rd ed.), p. 384 *•
Springer, Berlin, 1905.

Ml. J. C. Maxwell, The Scientific Papers of J. C. Maxwell (W. P. Niven , Ed.), Vol.

1, p. 377, Dover, New York.

M2. [Ml),Vol. 2, p. 418.

Nl. F. E. Neumann, AdP 23, 32 (1831).

N2. W. Nernst, PAW, 1911, p. 306.

N3. , Gott. Nachr., 1906, p. 1.

N4. , PAW, 1906, p. 933.

N5. , PAW, 1910, p. 262.

EINSTEIN AND SPECIFIC HEATS

401

N6. , 1911,p. 65.

N7. and F. Lindcmann, PAW, 1911, p. 494.

N8. , Z. Elektrochem. 20, 397 (1914).

PI. A. T. Petit and P. L. Dulong, Ann. Chim. Phys. 10, 395 (1819).

P2. M. Planck, Vorlesungen uber Thermodynamik (3rd Edn.), introduction and Sec.
292. Von Veit, Leipzig, 1911.

Rl. A. de la Rive and F. Marcet, Ann. Chtm. Phys. 75, 113 (1840).

R2. H. V. Regnault, Ann. Chtm. Phys. 1, 129 (1841), especially pp. 202-5.

R3. F. Richarz, AdP 4%, 708 (1893).

R4. J. W. S. Rayleigh, Phil. Mag. 49, 98 (1900).

51. A. Sommerfeld, Gesammelte Schnften, Vol. 3, p. 10. Vie\veg, Braunschweig, 1968.

52. F. Simon, Yearbook Phys. Soc. London, 1956, p. 1.

Wl. H. F. Weber, AdPUJ, 311 (1872).

W2. , AdP 154, 367, 533 (1875).

W3. A. Wigand, AdP 22, 99 (1907).

W4. A. Wiillner, Lehrbuch der Expenmentalphysik, Vol. 2, p. 507. Teubner, Leipzig,
1896.

The Photon

21a. The Fusion of Particles and Waves and Einstein’s Destiny

I now continue the tale of the light-quantum, a subject on which Einstein pub-
lished first in 1905, then again in 1906. Not long thereafter, there began the period
I earlier called ‘three and a half years of silence,' during which he was again
intensely preoccupied with radiation and during which he wrote to Laub, ‘I am
incessantly busy with the question of radiation. . . . This quantum question is so
uncommonly important and difficult that it should concern everyone’ [El). Our
next subject will be two profound papers on radiation published in 1909. The first
one [E2] was completed while Einstein was still a technical expert second class at
the patent office. The second one [E3] was presented to a conference at Salzburg
in September, shortly after he had been appointed associate professor in Zurich.
These papers are not as widely known as they should be because they address
questions of principle without offering any new experimental conclusion or pre-
diction, as had been the case for the first light-quantum paper (photoeffect) and
the paper on specific heats.

In 1909 Kirchhoff’s theorem was half a century old. The blackbody radiation
law had meanwhile been found by Planck. A small number of physicists realized
that its implications were momentous. A proof of the law did not yet exist. Never-
theless, ‘one cannot think of refusing [to accept) Planck’s theory,’ Einstein said in
his talk at Salzburg, That was his firmest declaration of faith up to that date. In
the next sentence, he gave the new reason for his conviction: Geiger and Ruther-
ford’s value for the electric charge had meanwhile been published and Planck’s
value for e had been ‘brilliantly confirmed’ (Section 19a).

In Section 4c, I explained Einstein’s way of deriving the energy fluctuation
formula

( 211 )

where is the mean square energy fluctuation and ( £) the average energy for
a system in contact with a thermal bath at temperature T. As is so typical for
Einstein, he derived this statistical physics equation in a paper devoted to the
quantum theory, the January 1909 paper. His purpose for doing so was to apply

402

THE PHOTON

403

this result to energy fluctuations of blackbody radiation in a frequency interval
between v and v + dv. In order to understand how this refinement is made, con-
sider a small subvolume y of a cavity filled with thermal radiation. Enclose v with
a wall that prevents all frequencies but those in dv from leaving v while those in
dv can freely leave and enter v. We may then apply Eq. 21.1 with {E) replaced
by pvdv, so that is now a function of v and T and we have

{^{vj)) = kVvdv{dp/dT) (21.2)

This equation expresses the energy fluctuations in terms of the spectral function
p in a way that is independent of the detailed form of p. Consider now the follow-
ing three cases.

1. p is given by the Rayleigh -Einstein- Jeans law (eq. 19.17). Then

(21.3)

2. p is given by the Wien law (Eq. 19.7). Then

(€^(VyT)) — hvpvdv

(21.4)

3. p is given by the Planck law (Eq. 19.6). Then

W{v,T)) = (hvf> + '^iP^Pdv

(21.5)

(I need not apologize for having used the same symbol p in the last three equations
even though p is a different function of v and T in each of them.)*

In his discussion of Eq. 21.5, Einstein stressed that ‘the current theory of radia-
tion is incompatible with this result.’ By current theory, he meant, of course, the
classical wave theory of light. Indeed, the classical theory would give only the
second term in Eq. 21.5, the ‘wave term’ (compare Eqs, 21.5 and 21.3). About the
first term of Eq. 21.5, Einstein had this to say: ‘If it alone were present, it would
result in fluctuations [to be expected) if radiation were to consist of independently
moving pointlike quanta with energy hv.' In other words, compare Eqs. 21.4 and
21.5. The former corresponds to Wien’s law, which in turn holds in the regime
in which Einstein had introduced the light-quantum postulate.

Observe the appearance of a new element in this last statement by Einstein.
The word pointlike occurs. Although he did not use the term in either of his 1909
papers, he now was clearly thinking of quanta as particles. His own way of refer-
ring to the particle aspect of light was to call it ‘the point of view of the Newtonian
emission theory.’ His vision of light-quanta as particles is especially evident in a
letter to Sommerfeld, also dating from 1909, in which he writes of ‘the ordering
of the energy of light around discrete points which move with light velocity’ [E4].

Equations 21.3 and 21.4 do not explicitly occur in Einstein’s own paper.

404

THE QUANTUM THEORY

Equation 21.5 suggests (loosely speaking) that the particle and wave aspects of
radiation occur side by side. This is one of the arguments which led Einstein in
1909 to summarize his view on the status of the radiation theory in the following
way!*"

I already attempted earlier to show that our current foundations of the radiation

theory have to be abandoned It is my opinion that the next phase in the

development of theoretical physics will bring us a theory of light that can be
interpreted as a kind of fusion of the wave and the emission theory. . . . [The]
wave structure and [the] quantum structure ... are not to be considered as
mutually incompatible. ... It seems to follow from the Jeans law [Eq. 19.17)
that we will have to modify our current theories, not to abandon them
completely.

This fusion now goes by the name of complementarity. The reference to the
Jeans law we would now call an application of the correspondence principle.

The extraordinary significance for twentieth century physics of Einstein’s sum-
ming up hardly needs to be stressed. I also see it as highly meaningful in relation
to the destiny of Einstein the scientist if not of Einstein the man. In 1909, at age
thirty, he was prepared for a fusion theory. He was alone in this. Planck certainly
did not support this vision. Bohr had yet to arrive on the scene. Yet when the
fusion theory arrived in 1925, in the form of quantum mechanics, Einstein could
not accept the duality of particles and waves inherent in that theory as being fun-
damental and irrevocable. It may have distressed him that one statement he made
in 1909 needed revision: moving light-quanta with energy hv are not pointlike.
Later on, I shall have to make a number of comments on the scientific reasons
that changed Einstein’s apartness from that of a figure far ahead of his lime to
that of a figure on the sidelines. As I already indicated earlier, I doubt whether
this change can be fully explained on the grounds of his scientific philosophy
alone.

(As a postscript to the present section, I add a brief remark on Einstein’s energy
fluctuation formula. Equations 21.3-21.5 were obtained by a statistical reasoning.
One should also be able to derive them in a directly dynamic way. Einstein himself
had given qualitative arguments for the case of Eq. 21.3. He noted that the fluc-
tuations come about by interference between waves with frequencies within and
without the dv interval. A few years later, Lorentz gave the detailed calculation,
obtaining Eq. 21.3 from classical electromagnetic theory [LI]. However, difficul-
ties arose with attempts to derive the Planck case (Eq. 21.5) dynamically. These
were noted in 1919 by Leonard Omstein and Frits Zemike, two Dutch experts
on statistical physics [01 ]. The problem was further elaborated by Ehrenfest [E5].

*In the following quotation, I combine statements made in the January and in the October paper.

THE PHOTON

405

It was known at that time that one can obtain Planck’s expression for p by
introducing the quantum prescription* that the electromagnetic field oscillators
could have only energies nhv. However, both Ornstein and Zernike, and Ehren-
fest found that the same prescription applied to the fluctuation formula gave the
wrong answer. The source of the trouble seemed to lie in Einstein’s entropy
additivity assumption (see Eq. 4.21). According to Uhlenbeck (private communi-
cation), these discrepancies were for some years considered to be a serious prob-
lem. In their joint 1925 paper, Born, Heisenberg, and Jordan refer to it as a
fundamental difficulty [Bl]. In that same paper, it was shown, however, that the
new quantum mechanics applied to a set of noninteracting oscillators does give the
Einstein answer. The noncommutativity of coordinates and momenta plays a role
in this derivation. Again, according to Uhlenbeck (private communication), the
elimination of this difficulty was considered one of the early successes of quantum
mechanics. (It is not necessary for our purposes to discuss subsequent improve-
ments on the Heisenberg-Born-Jordan treatment.))**

21b. Spontaneous and Induced Radiative Transitions

After 1909 Einstein continued brooding about the light-quantum for almost
another two years. As mentioned in Chapter 10, in May 1911 he wrote to Besso,
‘I do not ask anymore whether these quanta really exist. Nor do I attempt any
longer to construct them, since I now know that my brain is incapable of fath-
oming the problem this way’ [E6]. For the time being, he was ready to give up.
In October 1911 Einstein (now a professor in Prague) gave a report on the quan-
tum theory to the first Solvay Congress [ET], but by this time general relativity
had already become his main concern and would remain so until November 1915.
In 1916, he returned once again to blackbody radiation and made his next
advance. In November 1916 he wrote to Besso, ‘A splended light has dawned on
me about the absorption and emission of radiation’ [ES]. He had obtained a deep
insight into the meaning of his heuristic principle, and this led him to a new der-
ivation of Planck’s radiation law. His reasoning is contained in three papers, two
of which appeared in 1916 [E9, ElO], the third one early in 1917 [Ell]. His
method is based on general hypotheses about the interaction between radiation
and matter. No special assumptions are made about intrinsic properties of the
objects which interact with the radiation. These objects ‘will be called molecules
in what follows’ [E9]. (It is completely inessential to his arguments that these
molecules could be Planck’s oscillators!)

Einstein considered a system consisting of a gas of his molecules interacting
with electromagnetic radiation. The entire system is in thermal equilibrium.

*Thc elementary derivation due to Debye is found in Section 24c.

••The reader interested in these further developments is referred to a paper by Gonzalez and Werge-
land, which also contains additional references to this subject [Gl).

4o6

THE QUANTUM THEORY

Denote by the energy levels of a molecule and by the equilibrium number
of molecules in the level E^. Then

N^ = p^tM-EJkT) ( 21 . 6 )

where is a weight factor. Consider a pair of levels E^, > E^. Einstein’s

new hypothesis is that the total number dW of transitions in the gas per time
interval dt is given by

dW^ = + AJdt for m - n (21.7)

dW^-^N^B^dt forn-m (21.8)

The A coefficient corresponds to spontaneous transitions m -* n, which occur with
a probability that is independent of the spectral density p of the radiation present.
The B terms refer to induced emission and absorption. In Eqs. 21.7 and 21.8, p
is a function of v and T, where ‘we shall assume that a molecule can go from the
state to the state E^ by absorption of radiation with a definite frequency v, and
[similarly] for emission’ [E9]. Microscopic reversibility implies that dW^^ =
dW^. Using Eq. 21.6, we therefore have

exp|(£„ - E^)/kT\ - (21.9)

(Note that the second term on the right-hand side corresponds to induced emission.
Thus, if there were no induced emission we would obtain Wien’s law.) Einstein
remarked that ‘the constants A and B could be computed directly if we were to
possess an electrodynamics and mechanics modified in the sense of the quantum
hypothesis’ [E9]. That, of course, was not yet the case. He therefore continued his
argument in the following way. For fixed E^^ — £„ and T -♦ oo, we should get
the Rayleigh- Einstein- Jeans law (Eq. 19.17). This implies that

B^p. = B^p^ (21.10)

whence

p = a^{exp[(£„ - E:)/kT] - 1}- (21.11)

where ctj^ = A^/B^. Then he concluded his derivation by appealing to the uni-
versality of p and to Wien’s displacement law, Eq. 19.4: and E^ — cannot

depend on particular properties of the molecule but only on the active frequency
V, as follows from the fact that p must be a universal function of v and T. Further,
it follows from Wien’s displacement law that and £„ -- £„ are proportional
to the third and first powers of v, respectively. Thus one has

E^-^ E^^h ( 21 . 12 )

where h denotes a constant’ [E9].

The content of Eq. 21.12 is far more profound than a definition of the symbol

THE PHOTON

407

p (and h). It is a compatibility condition. Its physical content is this: in order that
Eqs. 21.7 and 21.8 may lead to Planck’s law, it is necessary that the transitions
m n are accompanied by a single monochromatic radiation quantum. By this
remarkable reasoning, Einstein therefore established a bridge between blackbody
radiation and Bohr’s theory of spectra.

About the assumptions he made in the above derivation, Einstein wrote. The
simplicity of the hypotheses makes it seem probable to me that these will become
the basis of the future theoretical description.’ That turned out to be true.

Two of the three papers under discussion [ElO, El 1] contained another result,
one which Einstein himself considered far more important than his derivation of
the radiation law: light-quanta carry a momentum hv/c. This will be our next
topic.

21c. The Completion of the Particle Picture

/. Light-Quantum and Photon. A photon is a state of the electromagnetic field

with the following properties.

1. It has a definite frequency

2. Its energy E,

V and a definite wave vector k.

E hv

(21.13)

and its momentum p,

p = hi

(21.14)

satisfy the dispersion law

^ i

(21.15)

characteristic of a particle of zero rest mass.*

3. It has spin one and (like all massless particles with nonzero spin) two states of
polarization. The single particle states are uniquely specified by these three
properties [Wl],

The number of photons is in general not conserved in particle reactions and
decays. I shall return to the nonconservation of photon number in Chapter 23, but
would like to note here an ironic twist of history. The term photon first appeared
in the title of a paper written in 1926: The Conservation of Photons.’ The author:
the distinguished physical chemist Gilbert Lewis from Berkeley. The subject: a
speculation that light consists of ‘a new kind of atom . . . uncreatable and inde-
structible [for which] I . . . propose the name photon’ [L2]. This idea was soon
forgotten, but the new name almost immediately became part of the language. In

*Thcrc have been occasional speculations that the photon might have a tiny nonzero mass. Direct
experimental information on the photon mass is therefore a matter of interest The best determina-
tions of this mass come from astronomical observations. The present upper bound is 8 X 10 g
(D1 j. In what follows, the photon mass is taken to be strictly zero.

4o8

THE QUANTUM THEORY

October 1927 the fifth Solvay conference was held. Its subject was ‘electrons et
photons.’

When Einstein introduced light-quanta in 1905, these were energy quanta sat-
isfying Eq. 21.13. There was no mention in that paper of Eqs. 21.15 and 21.14.
In other words, the full-fledged particle concept embodied in the term photon was
not there all at once. For this reason, in this section I make the distinction between
light-quantum (‘£ = hv only’) and photon. The dissymmetry between energy and
momentum in the 1905 paper is, of course, intimately connected with the origins
of the light-quantum postulate in equilibrium statistical mechanics. In the statis-
tical mechanics of equilibrium systems, important relations between the overall
energy and other macroscopic variables are derived. The overall momentum plays
a trivial and subsidiary role. These distinctions between energy and momentum
are much less pronounced when fluctuations around the equilibrium state are con-
sidered. It was via the analysis of statistical fluctuations of blackbody radiation
that Einstein eventually came to associate a definite momentum with a light-quan-
tum. That happened in 1916. Before I describe what he did, I should again draw
the attention of the reader to the remarkable fact that it took the father of special
relativity theory twelve years to write down the relation p = hv/c side by side
with E — hv.\ shall have more to say about this in Section 25d.

2. Momentum Fluctuations: 1909. Einstein’s first results bearing on the
question of photon momentum are found in the two 1 909 papers. There he gave
a momentum fluctuation formula that is closely akin to the energy fluctuation
formula Eq. 21.5. He considered the case of a plane mirror with mass m and area
/ placed inside the cavity. The mirror moves perpendicular to its own plane and
has a velocity v at time t. During a small time interval from tio t t, its momen-
tum changes from mv to mv — Pvr + A. The second term describes the drag
force due to the radiation pressure {P is the corresponding friction constant). This
force would eventually bring the mirror to rest were it not for the momentum
fluctuation term A, induced by the fluctuations of the radiation pressure. In ther-
mal equilibrium, the mean square momentum m^(v^} should remain unchanged
over the interval r. Hence* (A^) = 2mPr{i/). The equipartition law applied to
the kinetic energy of the mirror implies that m{v^) = kT. Thus

<A') * 2PTkT (21.16)

Einstein computed P in terms of p for the case in which the mirror is fully trans-
parent for all frequencies except those between v and v -h dv, which it reflects
perfectly. Using Planck’s expression for p, he found that

phv +

c P

Jrdv

(21.17)

•Terms 0{P) arc dropped, and (t/ A) *0 since v and A arc uncorrclatcd.

THE PHOTON

409

The parallels between Eqs. 21.5 and 21.17 are striking. The resp)ective first terms
dominate if hvj kT the regime in which p is approximated by Wien’s expo-
nential law. Recall that Einstein had said of the first term in Eq. 21.5 that it
corresponds to ‘independently moving pointlike quanta with energy hv' One
might therefore expect that the first term in Eq. 21.17 would lead Einstein to
state, in 1909, the ‘momentum quantum postulate’: monochromatic radiation of
low density behaves in regard to pressure fluctuations as if it consists of mutually
independent momentum quanta of magnitude hv/c. It is unthinkable to me that
Einstein did not think so. But he did not quite say so.

What he did say was, ‘If the radiation were to consist of very few extended
complexes with energy hv which move independently through space and which
are independently reflected— a picture that represents the roughest visualization
of the light-quantum hypothesis— then as a consequence of fluctuations in the
radiation pressure there would act on our plate only such momenta as are repre-
sented by the first term of our formula [Eq. 21.17].’ He did not refer explicitly to
momentum quanta or to the relativistic connection between £ = /ip and p =
hv/c. Yet a particle concept (the photon) was clearly on his mind, since he went
on to conjecture that ‘the electromagnetic fields of light are linked to singular
points similar to the occurrence of electrostatic fields in the theory of electrons’
[E3]. It seems fair to paraphrase this statement as follows: light-quanta may well
be particles in the same sense that electrons are particles. The association between
the particle concept and a high degree of spatial localization is typical for that
period. It is of course not correct in general.

The photon momentum made its explicit appearance in that same year, 1909.
Johannes Stark had attended the Salzburg meeting at which Einstein discussed
the radiative fluctuations. A few months later, Stark stated that according to the
light-quantum hypothesis, ‘the total electromagnetic momentum emitted by an
accelerated electron is different from zero and ... in absolute magnitude is given
by hv/ c [SI ]. As an example, he mentioned Bremsstrahlung, for which he wrote
down the equation

- ^ ^ hv -*

+ rrijVi = + ^ 2^2 c (21.18)

the first occasion on record in which the photon enters explicitly into the law of
momentum conservation for an elementary process.

3. Momentum Fluctuations: 1916. Einstein himself did not explicitly intro-
duce photon momentum until 1916, in the course of his studies on thermal equi-
librium between electromagnetic radiation and a molecular gas [ElO, Ellj. In
addition to his new discussion of Planck’s law, Einstein raised the following prob-
lem. In equilibrium, the molecules have a Maxwell distribution for the transla-
tional velocities. How is this distribution maintained in time considering the fact
that the molecules are subject to the influence of radiation pressure? In other
words, what is the Brownian motion of molecules in the presence of radiation?

410

THE QUANTUM THEORY

Technically, the following issue arises. If a molecule emits or absorbs an
amount € of radiative energy all of which moves in the same direction, then it
experiences a recoil of magnitude c/c. There is no recoil if the radiation is not
directed at all, as for a spherical wave. Question: What can one say about the
degree of directedness of the emitted or absorbed radiation for the system under
consideration? Einstein began the discussion of this question in the same way he
had treated the mirror problem in 1909. Instead of the mirror, he now considered
molecules that all move in the same direction. Then there is again a drag force,
PvTy and a fluctuation term, A. Equipartition gives again m{v^) = kT, and one
arrives once more at Eq. 21.16.

Next comes the issue of compatibility. With the help of Eqs. 21.7 and 21.8,
Einstein could compute separately expressions for (A^) as well as for P in terms
of the A and B terms and p, where p is now given by Planck’s law.* I shall not
reproduce the details of these calculations, but do note the crux of the matter. In
order to obtain the same answer for the quantities on both sides of Eq. 21.16, he
had to invoke a condition of directedness: 4f a bundle of radiation causes a mole-
cule to emit or absorb an energy amount hv, then a momentum hv/c is transferred
to the molecule, directed along the bundle for absorption and opposite the bundle
for [induced] emission’ [Ellj. (The question of spontaneous emission is discussed
below.) Thus Einstein found that consistency with the Planck distribution (and
Eqs. 21.7 and 21.8) requires that the radiation be fully directed ^this is often called
Nadelstrahlung). And so with the help of his trusted and beloved fluctuation
methods, Einstein once again produced a major insight, the association of momen-
tum quanta with energy quanta. Indeed, if we leave aside the question of spin,
we may say that Einstein abstracted not only the light-quantum but also the more
general photon concept entirely from statistical mechanical considerations.

21d. Earliest Unbehagen about Chance

Einstein prefaced his statement about photon momentum just quoted with the
remark that this conclusion can be considered ‘als ziemlich sicher erwiesen,’ as
fairly certainly proven. If he had some lingering reservations, they were mainly
due to his having derived some of his equations on the basis of ‘the quantum
theory, [which is] incompatible with the Maxwell theory of the electromagnetic
field’ [Ell]. Moreover, his momentum condition was a sufficient, not a necessary,
condition, as was emphasized by Pauli in a review article completed in 1924:
‘From Einstein’s considerations, it could ... not be seen with complete certainty
that his assumptions were the only ones that guarantee thermodynamic-statistical
equilibrium’ [PI]. Nevertheless, his 1917 results led Einstein to drop his caution
and reticence about light-quanta. They had become real to him. In a letter to

*In 1910, Einstein had made a related calculation, together with Hopf [El 2). At that time, he used
the classical electromagnetic theory to compute (A*) and P. This cast Eq. 21.16 into a differential
equation for p. Its solution is Eq. 19.17.

THE PHOTON

411

Besso about the needle rays, he wrote, ‘Damit sind die Lichtquanten so gut wie
gesichert’ [El 3].* And, in a phrase contained in another letter about two years
later, ‘I do not doubt anymore the reality of radiation quanta, although I still
stand quite alone in this conviction,’ he underlined the word ‘Realitat’ [E14].

On the other hand, at about the same time that Einstein lost any remaining
doubts about the existence of light-quanta, we also encounter the first expressions
of his Unbehagen, his discomfort with the theoretical implications of the new
quantum concepts in regard to ‘Zufall,’ chance. This earliest unease stemmed
from the conclusion concerning spontaneous emission that Einstein had been
forced to draw from his consistency condition (Eq. 21.16): the needle ray picture
applies not only to induced processes (as was mentioned above) but also to spon-
taneous emission. That is, in a spontaneous radiative transition, the molecule suf-
fers a recoil hv/c. However, the recoil direction cannot be predicted! He stressed
(quite correctly, of course) that it is ‘a weakness of the theory . . . that it leaves
time and direction of elementary processes to chance’ [Ell]. What decides when
the photon is spontaneously emitted? What decides in which direction it will go?

These questions were not new. They also apply to another class of emission
processes, the spontaneity of which had puzzled physicists since the turn of the
century: radioactive transformations. A spontaneous emission coefficient was in
fact first introduced by Rutherford in 1900 when he derived** the equation dN
= —\Ndt for the decrease of the number N of radioactive thorium emanation
atoms in the time interval dt [R2]. Einstein himself drew attention to this simi-
larity: ‘It speaks in favor of the theory that the statistical law assumed for [spon-
taneous] emission is nothing but the Rutherford law of radioactive decay’ [E9]. I
have written elsewhere about the ways physicists respnded to this baffling life-
time problem [P2]. I should now add that Einstein was the first to realize that the
probability for spontaneous emission is a nonclassical quantity. No one before
Einstein in 1917 saw as clearly the depth of the conceptual crisis generated by the
occurrence of spontaneous processes with a well-defined lifetime. He expressed
this in prophetic terms:

The properties of elementary processes required by [Eq. 21.16] make it seem

almost inevitable to formulate a truly quantized theory of radiation. [Ell]

Immediately following his comment on chance, Einstein continued, ‘Neverthe-
less, I have full confidence in the route which has been taken’ [Ell]. If he was
confident at that time about the route, he also felt strongly that it would be a long
one. The chance character of spontaneous processes meant that something was
amiss with classical causality. That would forever deeply trouble him. As early as
March 1917, he had written on this subject to Besso, ‘I feel that the real joke that
the eternal inventor of enigmas has presented us with has absolutely not been

*With that, (the existence of) light-quanta is practically certain.

•*Hcrc a development began which, two years later, culminated in the transformation theory for
radioactive substances |R1].

412

THE QUANTUM THEORY

understood as yet’ [El 5]. It is believed by nearly all of us that the joke was under-
stood soon after 1925, when it became possible to calculate Einstein’s and
from first principles. As I shall discuss later, Einstein eventually accepted
these principles but never considered them to be first principles. Throughout the
rest of his life, his attitude was that the joke has not been understood as yet. One
further example may show how from 1917 on he could not make his peace with
the quantum theory. In 1920 he wrote as follows to Born:

That business about causality causes me a lot of trouble, too. Can the quantum
absorption and emission of light ever be understood in the sense of the complete
causality requirement, or would a statistical residue remain? I must admit that
there I lack the courage of a conviction. However, I would be very unhappy to
renounce complete causality. [El 6)

21e. An Aside: Quantum Conditions for Nonseparable Classical Motion

In May 1917, shortly after Einstein finished his triple of papers on the quantum
theory of radiation, he wrote an article on the restrictions imposed by the ‘old’
quantum theory on classically allowed orbits in phase space [El 7], to which he
added a brief mathematical sequel a few months later [El 8]. He never returned
to this subject nor, for a long time, did others show much interest in it. However,
recently the importance and the pioneering character of this work has been rec-
ognized by mathematicians, quantum physicists, and quantum chemists. The only
logic for mentioning this work at this particular place is that it fits with the time
sequence of Einstein’s contributions to quantum physics.

What Einstein did was to generalize the Bohr-Sommerfeld conditions for a
system with / degrees of freedom. These conditions are Sp,dq, = n,h, i =
1 , . . . , where the q, are the coordinates, the /?, their conjugate momenta, and
the n, the integer quantum numbers. These conditions had been derived for the
case where one can find a coordinate system in which the classical motion is sep-
arable in the coordinates. Thus, the conditions, if at all realizable, depend on the
choice of a suitable coordinate system. Einstein found a coordinate-invariant gen-
eralization of these conditions which, moreover, did not require the motion to be
separable, but only to be multiply periodic. The generalization of this result has
become a problem of interest to mathematicians. Its relevance to modern physics
and chemistry stems from the connection between the orbits of the old quantum
theory and the semiclassical (WKB) limit of quantum mechanics. For example,
a semiclassical treatment of the nuclear motion in a molecule can be combined
with a Bom-Oppenheimer treatment of the electronic motion. For references to
recent literature, see, e.g., [B2) and [Ml].

21f. The Compton Effect

I return to the photon story and come to its denouement.

Since, after 1917, Einstein firmly believed that light-quanta were here to stay.

THE PHOTON

413

it is not surprising that he would look for new ways in which the existence of
photons might lead to observable deviations from the classical picture. In this he
did not succeed. At one point, in 1921, he thought he had found a new quantum
criterion [E19], but it soon turned out to be a false lead [E20, Kl]. In fact, after
1917 nothing particularly memorable happened in regard to light-quanta until
capital progress was achieved* when Arthur Compton [Cl] and Debye [D2]
independently derived the relativistic kinematics for the scattering of a photon off
an electron at rest:

hl = 'p-\-^hk' (21.19)

hc\k\ -f mc^ = hc\k'\ -h (cy -h (21.20)

Why were these elementary equations not published five or even ten years earlier,
as well they could have been? Even those opposed to quantized radiation might
have found these relations to their liking since (independent of any quantum
dynamics) they yield at once significant differences from the classical theories of
the scattering of light by matter** and therefore provide simple tests of the photon
idea.

I have no entirely satisfactory answer to this question. In particular, it is not
clear to me why Einstein himself did not consider these relations. However, there
are two obvious contributing factors. First, because photons were rejected out of
hand by the vast majority of physicists, few may have felt compelled to ask for
tests of an idea they did not believe to begin with. Second, it was only in about
1922 that strong evidence became available for deviations from the classical pic-
ture. This last circumstance impelled both Compton and Debye to pursue the
quantum alternative.! Debye, incidentally, mentioned his indebtedness to Ein-
stein’s work on needle radiation [D2]. Compton in his paper does not mention
Einstein at all.

The same paper in which Compton discussed Eqs. 21.19 and 21.20 also con-
tains the result of a crucial experiment. These equations imply that the wave-
length difference AA between the final and the initial photon is given by

AX = {h/mc){\ - cosS) (21.21)

where S is the photon scattering angle, Compton found this relation to be satisfied

* Einstein attached great importance to an advance in another direction that took place in the inter-
vening years: the effect discovered by Otto Stern and Walther Gerlach [E21]. Together with Ehren-
fest, he made a premature attempt at its interpretation (E22]

••For details on these classical theories, sec Stuewer’s fine monograph on the Compton effect [S2).

+Nor is it an accident that these two men came forth with the photon kinematics at about the same
time. In his paper, Debye acknowledges a 1922 report by Compton in which the evidence against
the classical theory was reviewed. A complete chronology of these developments in 1922 and 1923 is
found in [82), p. 235. For a detailed account of the evolution of Compton’s thinking, sec (S2], Chap-
ter 6.

414

THE QUANTUM THEORY

within the error.* The quality of the experiment is well demonstrated by the value
he obtained for the Compton wavelength: h/mc ^ 0.0242 A, which is within less
than one per cent of the modern value (for the current state of the subject, see
[W2]). Compton concluded, The experimental support of the theory indicates
very convincingly that a radiation quantum carries with it directed momentum as
well as energy.’**

This discovery ‘created a sensation among the physicists of that time’ [Al].
There were the inevitable controversies surrounding a discovery of such major
proportions. Nevertheless, the photon idea was rapidly accepted. Sommerfeld
incorporated the Compton effect in his new edition of Atombau und Spektrallinien
with the comment, ‘It is probably the most important discovery which could have
been made in the current state of physics’ [83).

What about Einstein’s response? A year after Compton’s experiments, Einstein
wrote a popular article for Berliner Tageblatt, which ends as follows; ‘The posi-
tive result of the Compton experiment proves that radiation behaves as if it con-
sisted of discrete energy projectiles, not only in regard to energy transfer but also
in regard to Stosswirkung (momentum transfer)’ [E241. Here then, in projectile
(that is, particle) language, is the ‘momentum postulate,’ phrased in close analogy
to the energy quantum postulate in 1905. In both cases, we encounter the phra-
seology, ‘Radiation . . . behaves ... as if it consists of. . . .’

Still, Einstein was not (and would never be) satisfied. There was as yet no real
theory. In the same article he also wrote, ‘There are therefore now two theories
of light, both indispensable, and — as one must admit today despite twenty years
of tremendous effort on the part of theoretical physicists — without any logical
connection.’

The years 1923-24 mark the end of the first phase of Einstein’s apartness in
relation to the quantum theory. Yet there remained one important bastion of
resistance to the photon, centering around Niels Bohr.

References

Al. S. K. Allison, Biogr. Mem. Nat. Acad. Set. 38, 81 (1965).

Bl. M. Born, W. Heisenberg, and P. Jordan, Z. Phys. 35, 557 (1925).

B2. M. V. Berry, Ann. N.Y. Ac. Set. 357, 183 (1980).

Cl. A. H. Compton, Phys. Rev. 21, 483 (1923).

Dl. L. Davis, A. S. Goldhaber, and M. M. Nieto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 35, 1402 (1975).
D2. P. Debye, Phys. Zeitschr. 24, 161 (1923).

•K-linc X-rays from a molybdenum anticathodc were scattered off graphite. Compton stressed that
one should use only light elements as scatterers so that the electrons will indeed be quasi-free. Scat-
tered X-rays at 45®, 90®, and 135® were analyzed.

•*The work of Compton and Debye led Pauli to extend Einstein’s work of 1917 to the case of
radiation in equilibrium with free electrons {P3|. Einstein and Ehrenfest subsequently discussed the
connection between Pauli’s and Einstein’s Stosszahlansatz |E23].

THE PHOTON

415

El. A. Einstein, letter to J. Laub, undated, 1908. Quoted in Se, p. 103.

E2. , Phys. Zeitschr. 10, 185 (1909).

E3. , Phys. Zeitschr. 10, 817 (1909).

E4. , letter to A. Sommerfeld, September 29, 1909.

E5. P. Ehrenfest, Z. Phys. 34, 362 (1925).

E6. A. Einstein, letter to M. Besso, May 13, 1911; EB, p. 19.

E7. , in La Theorie du Rayonnement et les Quanta (P. Langevin and M, de Brog-

lie, Eds.), p. 407. Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1912.

E8. , letter to M. Besso, November 18, 1916; EB, p. 78.

E9. , Verb. Deutsch. Phys. Ges. 18, 318 (1916).

ElO. , Mitt. Phys. Ges. Zurich 16, 47 (1916).

Ell. , Phys. Zeitschr. 18, 121 (1917).

E12. ,and L. Hopf, AdP^3, 1105 (1910).

El 3. , letter to M. Besso, September 6, 1916; EB, p. 82.

E14. , letter to M. Besso, July 29, 1918; EB, p. 130.

El 5. , letter to M. Besso, March 9, 1917.

El 6. , letter to M. Born, January 27, 1920; in M. Born (Ed.), The Born-Einstein

Letters, p. 23. Walker, New York, 1971.

E17. , Verb. Deutsch. Phys. Ges 19, 82 (1917)

E18. , PAW, 1917, p. 606.

E19. , PAW, 1921, p. 882.

E20. , PAW, 1922, p. 18.

E21. , letter to M. Besso, May 24, 1924; EB, p 201.

E22. , and P. Ehrenfest, Z. Phys. 11, 31 (1922).

E23. and , Z. Phys. 19, 301 (1923).

E24. , Berime I Tageblatt, April 20, 1924.

Gl. J. J. Gonzales and H.Wergeland, K. Nor. Vidensk. Selsk. Skr., No. 4, 1973.

Kl. M. Klein, Hist. St. Phys Sci. 2, 1 (1970).

LI. H. A. Lorentz, Les Theories Statistiques en Thermodynamique , p. 59. Teubner,
Leipzig, 1916.

L2. G. N. Lewis, Nature 118, 874 (1926).

Ml. R. A. Marcus, Ann. N.Y. Ac. Sci. 357, 169 (1980),

01. L. S. Ornsiein and F. Zernike, Proc. K. Ak. Amsterdam 28, 280 (1919).

PI. W, Pauli, Collected Scientific Papers, Vol. 1, p. 630. Interscience, New York, 1964.
P2. A. Pais, Rev. Mod. Phys. 49, 925 (1977).

P3. W. Pauli, Z. Phys. 18, 272 (1923).

Rl. E. Rutherford and F. Soddy, Phil. Mag. 4, 370, 569 (1902).

R2. — , Phil. Mag. 49, 1 (1900).

51. J. Stark, Phys. Zeitschr. 10, 902 (1909).

52. R. H. Stuewcr, The Compton Effect. Science History, New York, 1975.

53. A. Sommerfeld, Atombau und Spektrallinien (4th ed.), p. VIII. Vieweg, Braun-
schweig, 1924.

Wl. E. P. Wigner, Ann. Math. 40, 149 (1939).

W2. B. Williams (Ed.), Compton Scattering. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1977.

Interlude: The BKS Proposal

Sie haben sich heiss und innig geltebt.

Helen Dukas

In January 1924, Niels Bohr, Hendrik Anton Kramers, and John Clarke Slater
submitted to the Philosophical Magazine an article [Bl] that contained drastic
theoretical proposals concerning the interaction of light and matter. It was written
after Compton’s discovery, yet it rejected the photon. It was also written after
Einstein and Bohr had met. This chapter on the BKS proposal serves a twofold
purpose. It is a postscript to the story of the photon and a prelude to the Bohr-
Einstein dialogue which will occupy us more fully later on.

I have already mentioned that Einstein was immediately and strongly impressed
by Bohr’s work of 1913. The two men did not yet know each other at that time.
A number of years were to pass before their first encounter; meanwhile, they fol-
lowed each other’s published work. Also, Ehrenfest kept Einstein informed of the
progress of Bohr’s thinking. ‘Ehrenfest tells me many details from Niels Bohr’s
Gedankenkiiche [thought kitchen]; his must be a first-rate mind, extremely critical
and far-seeing, which never loses track of the grand design’ [El]. Einstein
remained forever deeply respectful of Bohr’s pioneering work. When he was
nearly seventy, he wrote ‘That this insecure and contradictory foundation [of
physics in the years from 1910 to 1920] was sufficient to enable a man of Bohr’s
unique instinct and tact to discover the major laws of the spectral lines and of the
electron shells of the atoms together with their significance for chemistry appeared
to me like a miracle — and appears to me as a miracle even today. This is the
highest form of musicality in the sphere of thought’ [E2].

Einstein and Bohr finally met in the spring of 1920, in Berlin. At that time,
they both had already been widely recognized as men of destiny who would leave
their indelible marks on the physics of the twentieth century. The impact of their
encounter was intense and went well beyond a meeting of minds only. Shortly
after his visit, Einstein wrote to Bohr, ‘Not often in life has a human being caused
me such joy by his mere presence as you did’ (E3]. Two days later, he wrote to
Ehrenfest, ‘Bohr was here, and I am as much in love with him as you are. He is

416

interlude: the bks proposal

417

like an extremely sensitive child who moves around in this world in a sort of
trance’ [£4]. The next month, Bohr wrote to Einstein, To meet you and to talk
with you was one of the greatest experiences I ever had’ [B2]. Some years later,
Einstein began a letter to Bohr, ‘Lieber oder viehmehr geliebter Bohr,’ Dear or
rather beloved Bohr [E5]. Once when I talked with Helen Dukas about the strong
tie between these two men, she made the comment that is at the head of this
chapter: They loved each other warmly and dearly.’

Those also were the years of scientific harmony between the two men. In 1922
Einstein wrote to Ehrenfest, ‘At present, I am reading a major lecture by Bohr*
which makes his world of thought wonderfully clear. He is truly a man of genius.
It is fortunate to have someone like that. I have full confidence in his way of
thinking’ [E6]. Einstein was particularly impressed at that time with Bohr’s enun-
ciation and handling of the correspondence principle [E6], a concept on which he
and Bohr were able to see eye to eye, then and later.

All who have known Bohr will be struck by the perceptive characterization
Einstein gave of him much later. ‘He utters his opinions like one perpetually grop-
ing and never like one who believes to be in the possession of definite truth’ [E7].
Bohr’s style of writing makes clear for all to see how he groped and struggled.
‘Never express yourself more clearly than you think,’ he used to admonish himself
and others. Bohr’s articles are sometimes dense. Having myself assisted him on a
number of occasions when he was attempting to put his thoughts on paper, I know
to what enormous lengths he went to find the most appropriate turn of phrase. I
have no such first-hand information about the way Einstein wrote. But, again for
all to see, there are the papers, translucent. The early Einstein papers are brief,
their content is simple, their language sparse. They exude finality even when they
deal with a subject in flux. For example, no statement made in the 1905 paper on
light-quanta needs to be revised in the light of later developments.

The first meeting of Einstein and Bohr took place in 1920, some years before
they found themselves at scientific odds on profound questions of principle in
physics. They did not meet very often in later times. They did correspond but not
voluminously. I was together a few times with both of them some thirty years after
their first encounter, when their respective views on the foundations of quantum
mechanics had long since become irreconcilable. Neither the years nor later events
had ever diminished the mutual esteem and affection in which they held one
another.

Let us now turn to the BKS proposal.

As already stressed in Section 19f, it was the position of most theoretical phys-
icists during the first decades of the quantum era that the conventional continuous
description of the free radiation field should be protected at all cost and that the
quantum puzzles concerning radiation should eventually be resolved by a revision

*This was presumably the text of Bohr’s contribution to the third Solvay conference (April 1921).
Because of ill health, Bohr did not deliver that lecture in person [B31.

4i8

THE QUANTUM THEORY

of the properties of interaction between radiation and matter. The BKS proposal
represents the extreme example of this position. Its authors suggested that radia-
tive processes have highly unconventional properties ‘the cause of [which] we shall
not seek in any departure from the electrodynamic theory of light as regards the
laws of propagation in free space, but in the peculiarities of the interaction
between the virtual field of radiation and the illuminated atoms’ [Blj. Before
describing these properties, I should point out that the BKS paper represents a
program rather than a detailed research report. It contains no formalism what-
soever.* This program was not to be the right way out of the difliculties of the old
quantum theory, yet the paper had a lasting impact in that (as we shall see) it
stimulated important experimental developments. Let us discuss next the two
main paradoxes addressed in BKS.

The first paradox. Consider an atom that emits radiation in a transition from
a higher to a lower state. BKS assume that in this process ‘energy [is] of two kinds,
the continuously changing energy of the field and the discontinuously changing
atomic energy’ [S2]. But how can there be conservation of an energy that consists
of two parts, one changing discontinuously, the other continuously? The BKS
answer [Bl]: ‘As regards the occurrence of transitions, which is the essential fea-
ture of the quantum theory, we abandon ... a direct application of the principles
of conservation of energy and momentum.’ Energy and momentum conservation,
they suggested, does not hold true for individual elementary processes but should
hold only statistically, as an average over many such processes.

The idea of energy nonconservation had already been on Bohr’s mind a few
years prior to the time of the BKS proposal [B5].** However, it was not Bohr
but Einstein who had first raised — and rejected — this possibility. In 1910 Einstein
wrote to a friend, ‘At present, I have high hopes for solving the radiation problem,
and that without light quanta. I am enormously curious as to how it will work
out. One must renounce the energy principle in its present form’ [E9]. A few days
later he was disenchanted. ‘Once again the solution of the radiation problem is
getting nowhere. The devil has played a rotten trick on me’ [ElO]. He raised the
issue one more time at the 1911 Solvay meeting, noting that his formula for the
energy fluctuations of blackbody radiation could be interpreted in two ways. ‘One
can choose between the [quantum] structure of radiation and the negation of an
absolute validity of the energy conservation law.’ He rejected the second alterna-
tive. ‘Who would have the courage to make a decision of this kind? . . . We shall
agree that the energy principle should be retained’ [Ell]. Others, however, were
apparently not as convinced. In 1916 the suggestion of statistical energy conser-

•Thc same is true for a sequel to this paper that Bohr wrote in 1925 (B4). Schroedinger (SI) and
especially Slater [S2] did make attempts to put the BKS ideas on a more formal footing. Sec also
Slater’s own recollections of that period (S3j

•*A letter from Ehrenfest to Einstein shows that Bohr’s thoughts had gone in that direction at least
as early as 1922 [E8].

interlude: the bks proposal

419

vation was taken up by Nernst (Nl).* Not later than January 1922, Sommerfeld
remarked that the mildest cure for reconciling the wave theory of light with
quantum phenomena would be to relinquish energy conservation [S4). Similar
speculations were made by other physicists as well [Kl], Thus the BKS proposal
must be regarded as an attempt to face the consequences of an idea that had been
debated for quite some time.

In order to understand Bohr’s position in 1924, it is above all important to
realize that to him the correspondence principle was the principal reliable bridge
between classical and quantum physics. However, the correspondence principle
is, of course, no help in understanding light-quanta: the issue of photons versus
waves lies beyond that principle. The photon-wave duality was the earliest
known instance of what was later to be called a complementary situation. The
BKS theory, with its rejection of photons and its insistence on the continuous pic-
ture of light at the price of nonconservation, historically represents the last stand
of the old quantum theory. For very good reasons, this proposal was characterized
some years later by one of the principal architects of quantum mechanics as rep-
resenting the height of the crisis in the old quantum theory [HI]. Nor was non-
conservation of energy and momentum in individual processes the only radical
proposal made by BKS.

The Second Paradox. Another question that had troubled Einstein since 1917
(as we have seen) was. How does an electron know when to emit radiation in
making a spontaneous transition?

In its general form, the BKS answer to this question was that there is no truly
spontaneous emission. They associated with an atom in a given state a ‘virtual
radiation field’ that contains all the possible transition frequencies to other sta-
tionary states and assumed that ‘the transitions which in [the Einstein theory of
1917] are designated as spontaneous are, in our view, induced [my italics] by the
virtual field.’ According to BKS, the spontaneous transition to a specific final state
is connected with the virtual field mechanism ‘by probability laws analogous to
those which in Einstein’s theory hold for induced transitions.’ In this way, ‘the
atom is under no necessity of knowing what transitions it is going to make ahead
of time’ [S2]. Thus, spontaneous emission is ascribed to the action of the virtual
field, but this action is noncausal. I shall not discuss details of the BKS picture of
induced emission and absorption and other radiative processes. Suffice it to say
that all of these are supposed to be due to virtual fields and that in all of these
causality is abandoned. In a paper completed later in 1924, Slater [S2] noted that
the theory ‘has unattractive features . . . [but] it is difficult at the present stage to
see how [these are] to be avoided.’

But what about the Compton effect? The successfully verified Eq. 21.21 rests
on the conservation laws Eqs. 21.19 and 21.20. However (BKS argued), these

*Thc title of Nernst ’s paper is (in translation) ‘On an attempt to revert from quantum-mechanical
considerations to the assumption of continuous energy changes.’

4i8

THE QUANTUM THEORY

•*A letter from Ehrenfest to Einstein shows that Bohr’s thoughts had gone in that direction at least
as early as 1922 [E8].

interlude: the bks proposal

421

(which had already plagued him for seven years by then) was the one to which he
took exception most strongly. He confided to Born that the thought was unbear-
able to him that an electron could choose freely the moment and direction in which
to move [El 5]. This causality question would continue to nag him long after
exp)eriment revealed that the BKS answers to both paradoxes were incorrect.

The Experimental Verdict on Causality. The BKS ideas stimulated Walther
Bothe and Hans Geiger to develop counter coincidence techniques for the purpose
of measuring whether, as causality demands, the secondary photon and the knock-
on electron are produced simultaneously in the Compton effect [B6]. Their result:
these two particles are both created in a time interval < 10’^ s [B7, B8]. Within
the limits of accuracy, causality had been established and the randomness of the
relative creation times demanded by BKS disproved. Since then, this time interval
has been narrowed down experimentally to ^ 10“" s [B9].

The Experimental Verdict on Energy- Momentum Conservation. The valid-
ity of these conservation laws in individual elementary processes was established
for the Compton effect by Compton and A. W. Simon. From cloud chamber obser-
vations on photoelectrons and knock-on electrons, they could verify the validity of
the relation

tan0 =

l+^Van%

( 22 . 1 )

in individual events, where 0, 6 are the scattering angles of the electron and pho-
ton, respectively, and i> is the incident frequency [Cl].

And so the last resistance to the photon came to an end. Einstein’s views had
been fully vindicated. The experimental news was generally received with great
relief (see, e.g., [P2]*). Bohr took the outcome in good grace and proposed ‘to give
our revolutionary efforts as honorable a funeral as possible’ [BlOj. He was now
prepared for an even more drastic resolution of the quantum paradoxes. In July
1925 he wrote, ‘One must be prepared for the fact that the required generalization
of the classical electrodynamic theory demands a profound revolution in the con-
cepts on which the description of nature has until now been founded’ [B4].

These remarks by Bohr end with references to de Broglie’s thesis and also to
Einstein’s work on the quantum gas (the subject of the next chapter): the profound
revolution had begun.

References

Bl. N. Bohr, H. A. Kramers, and J. C. Slater, Phil. Mag. 47, 785 (1924).

B2. , letter to A. Einstein, June 24, 1920.

B3. Niels Bohr, Collected Works (L. Rosenfeld, Ed.), Vol. 3, pp. 28, 357. North Hol-
land, New York, 1976.

Pauli’s own description of BKS, written early in 1925, can be found in his collected works {P3].

422

THE QUANTUM THEORY

B4. N. Bohr, Z. Phys. 34, 142 (1925).

B5. , Z. Phys. 13, 117 (1923), especially Sec. 4.

B6. W. Bothe and H. Geiger, Z. Phys. 26, 44 (1924).

B7. and , Naturw. 13, 440 (1925).

B8. and , Z. Phys. 32, 639 (1925).

B9. A. Bay, V. P. Henri, and F. McLennon, Phys. Rev. 97, 1710 (1955).

BIO. N. Bohr, letter to R. H. Fowler, April 21, 1925.

Cl. A. H. Compton and A. W. Simon, Phys. Rev. 26, 289 (1925).

El. A. Einstein, postcard to M. Planck, October 23, 1919.

E2. in Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist (P. A. Schilpp, Ed.). Tudor, New

York, 1949.

E3. , letter to N. Bohr, May 2, 1920.

E4. , letter to P. Ehrenfest, May 4, 1920.

E5. , letter to N. Bohr, January 11, 1923.

E6. , letter to P. Ehrenfest, March 23, 1922.

E7. , letter to B. Becker, March 20, 1954.

E8. P. Ehrenfest, letter to A. Einstein, January 17, 1922.

E9. A. Einstein, letter to J. J. Laub, November 4, 1910
ElO. , letter to J. J. Laub, November 7, 1910.

Ell. in Proceedings First Solvay Conference (P. Langevin and M. de Broglie, Ed.)

pp. 429, 436. Gauthier- Villars, Paris, 1912.

E12. , letter to K. Joel, November 3, 1924.

El 3. , letter to P. Ehrenfest, May 31, 1924.

El 4. , undated document in the Einstein archives, obviously written in 1924.

El 5. , letter to M. Born, April 29, 1924. Reprinted in The Born- Einstein Letters

(M. Born, Ed.), p. 82. Walker, New York, 1971.

HI. W. Heisenberg, Naturw. 17, 490 (1929).

H2. , letter to W. Pauli, June 8, 1924; see [PI], p. 154.

Jl. K. Joel, letter to A. Einstein, October 28, 1924.

Kl. M. Klein, Hist. St. Phys. Sci. 2, 1 (1970).

Nl. W. Nernst, Verb. Deutsch. Phys. Ges. 18, 83 (1916).

PI. W. Pauli, letter to N. Bohr, October 2, 1924, Reprinted in W. Pauli, Scientific
Correspondence (A. Hermann, K. v. Meyenn, and V. Weisskoff, Eds.), Vol. 1, p.
163. Springer, New York, 1979.

P2. , letter to H, A. Kramers, July 27, 1925, see [PI], p. 232,

P3. , Collected Scientific Papers, Vol. 1, pp. 83-6. Interscience, New York, 1964.

51. E. Schrocdinger, Naturw. 36, 720 (1924).

52. J. C. Slater, Phys. Rev. 25, 395 (1925).

53. , Int. J. Quantum Chem. Is, 1 (1967).

54. A. Sommcrfcld, Atombau und Spektrallinien (3rd edn.), p. 311. Vieweg, Braun-
schweig, 1922.

A Loss of Identity:

the Birth of Quantum Statistics

23a. From Boltzmann to Dirac

This episode begins with a letter dated June 1924 [Bl], written by a young Ben-
gali. His name was Satyendra Nath Bose. The five papers he had published by
then were of no particular distinction. The subject of his letter was his sixth paper.
He had sent it to the Philosophical Magazine. A referee had rejected it [B2].
Bose’s letter was addressed to Einstein, then forty-five years old and already rec-
ognized as a world figure by his colleagues and by the public at large. In this
chapter I describe what happened in the scientific lives of these two men during
the six months following Einstein’s receipt of Bose’s letter. For Bose the conse-
quences were momentous. Virtually unknown before, he became a physicist whose
name will always be remembered. For Einstein this period was only an inter-
lude.* He was already deeply engrossed in his search for a unified theory. Such
is the scope of his oeuvre that his discoveries in those six months do not even rank
among his five main contributions, yet they alone would have sufficed for Einstein
to be remembered forever.

Bose’s sixth paper deals with a new derivation of Planck’s law. Along with his
letter, he had sent Einstein a copy of his manuscript, written in English, and asked
him to arrange for publication in the Zeitschnft fur Physik, if he thought the work
of sufficient merit. Einstein acceded to Bose’s request. He personally translated
the paper into German and submitted it, adding as a translator’s note: ‘In my
opinion, Bose’s derivation of the Planck formula constitutes an important advance.
The method used here also yields the quantum theory of the ideal gas, as I shall
discuss elsewhere in more detail.’

The purpose of this chapter is not to discuss the history of quantum statistics
but rather to describe Einstein’s contribution to the subject. Nevertheless, I include
a brief outline of Bose’s work for numerous reasons. (1) It will give us some insight
into what made Einstein deviate temporarily from his main pursuits. (2) It will
facilitate the account of Einstein’s own research on the molecular gas. That work

*In 1925 Einstein said of his work on quantum statistics, ‘That’s only by the way’ (St|.

423

422

THE QUANTUM THEORY

B4. N. Bohr, Z. Phys. 34, 142 (1925).

B5. , Z. Phys. 13, 117 (1923), especially Sec. 4.

B6. W. Bothe and H. Geiger, Z. Phys. 26, 44 (1924).

B7. and , Naturw. 13, 440 (1925).

B8. and , Z. Phys. 32, 639 (1925).

B9. A. Bay, V. P. Henri, and F. McLennon, Phys. Rev. 97, 1710 (1955).

BIO. N. Bohr, letter to R. H. Fowler, April 21, 1925.

Cl. A. H. Compton and A. W. Simon, Phys. Rev. 26, 289 (1925).

El. A. Einstein, postcard to M. Planck, October 23, 1919.

E2. in Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist (P. A. Schilpp, Ed.). Tudor, New

York, 1949.

E3. , letter to N. Bohr, May 2, 1920.

E4. , letter to P. Ehrenfest, May 4, 1920.

E5. , letter to N. Bohr, January 11, 1923.

E6. , letter to P. Ehrenfest, March 23, 1922.

E7. , letter to B. Becker, March 20, 1954.

E8. P. Ehrenfest, letter to A. Einstein, January 17, 1922.

E9. A. Einstein, letter to J. J. Laub, November 4, 1910
ElO. , letter to J. J. Laub, November 7, 1910.

Ell. in Proceedings First Solvay Conference (P. Langevin and M. de Broglie, Ed.)

pp. 429, 436. Gauthier- Villars, Paris, 1912.

E12. , letter to K. Joel, November 3, 1924.

El 3. , letter to P. Ehrenfest, May 31, 1924.

El 4. , undated document in the Einstein archives, obviously written in 1924.

El 5. , letter to M. Born, April 29, 1924. Reprinted in The Born- Einstein Letters

(M. Born, Ed.), p. 82. Walker, New York, 1971.

HI. W. Heisenberg, Naturw. 17, 490 (1929).

H2. , letter to W. Pauli, June 8, 1924; see [PI], p. 154.

Jl. K. Joel, letter to A. Einstein, October 28, 1924.

Kl. M. Klein, Hist. St. Phys. Sci. 2, 1 (1970).

Nl. W. Nernst, Verb. Deutsch. Phys. Ges. 18, 83 (1916).

PI. W. Pauli, letter to N. Bohr, October 2, 1924, Reprinted in W. Pauli, Scientific
Correspondence (A. Hermann, K. v. Meyenn, and V. Weisskoff, Eds.), Vol. 1, p.
163. Springer, New York, 1979.

P2. , letter to H, A. Kramers, July 27, 1925, see [PI], p. 232,

P3. , Collected Scientific Papers, Vol. 1, pp. 83-6. Interscience, New York, 1964.

51. E. Schrocdinger, Naturw. 36, 720 (1924).

52. J. C. Slater, Phys. Rev. 25, 395 (1925).

53. , Int. J. Quantum Chem. Is, 1 (1967).

54. A. Sommcrfcld, Atombau und Spektrallinien (3rd edn.), p. 311. Vieweg, Braun-
schweig, 1922.

A LOSS OF IDENTITY; THE BIRTH OF QUANTUM STATISTICS

425

We owe to Dirac the observation that in the BE case, Eq. 23.2 must be replaced
by

= 1 (BE statistics) (23.3)

only the single microstate that is symmetric in the N particles is allowed. Dirac
went on to show that Eq. 23.3 leads to the blackbody radiation law, Eq. 19.6 [Dl].
Thus he brought to an end the search — which had lasted just over a quarter of a
century— for the foundations of Planck’s law.

Equation 23.3 was of course not known at the time Bose and Einstein com-
pleted the first papers ever written on quantum statistics. Theirs was guesswork,
but of an inspired kind. Let us turn first to Bose’s contribution.

23b. Bose

The paper by Bose [B3] is the fourth and last of the revolutionary papers of the
old quantum theory (the other three being by, respectively, Planck [PI], Einstein
[E2], and Bohr [B4]). Bose’s arguments divest Planck’s law of all supererogatory
elements of electromagnetic theory and base its derivation on the bare essentials.
It is the thermal equilibrium law for particles with the following properties: they
are massless, they have two states of polarization, the number of particles is not
conserved, and the particles obey a new statistics. In Bose’s paper, two new ideas
enter physics almost stealthily. One, the concept of a particle with two states of
polarization, mildly puzzled Bose. The other is the nonconservation of photons. I
do not know whether Bose even noticed this fact. It is not explicitly mentioned in
his pajDer.

Bose’s letter to Einstein begins as follows: ‘Respected Sir, I have ventured to
send you the accompanying article for your perusal. I am anxious to know what
you think of it. You will see that I have ventured to deduce the coefficient
in Planck’s law independent of the classical electrodynamics . . .’ [Blj. Einstein’s
letter to Ehrenfest contains the phrase, ‘the Indian Bose has given a beautiful
derivation of Planck’s law, including the constant [i e., [El]. Nei-

ther letter mentions the other parts of Planck’s formula. Why this emphasis on

In deriving Planck's law, one needs to know the number of states Z* in the
frequency interval between v* and + dv\ It was customary to compute Z* by
counting the number of standing waves in a cavity with volume V. This yields

Z* = (23.4)

Bose was so pleased because he had found a new derivation of this expression for
Z* which enabled him to give a new meaning to this quantity in terms of particle
language. His derivation rests on the replacing of the counting of wave frequencies
by the counting of cells in one-particle phase space. He proceeded as follows.
Integrate the one-particle phase space element dxdp over V and over all

426

THE QUANTUM THEORY

momenta between p' and />* -f dp\ Supply a further factor 2 to count polariza-
tions. This produces the quantity Stt V{p'Ydp*^ which equals h^Z' by virtue of the
relation p* = hp'/ c. Hence Z* is the number of cells of size contained in the
particle phase space region being considered. How innocent it looks, yet how new
it was. Recall that the kinematics of the Compton effect had been written down
only about a year and a half earlier. Here was a new application of /? = hv/c\

Before I turn to the rest of Bose's derivation, I shall comment briefly on the
subject of photon spin. When Bose introduced his polarization factor of 2, he noted
that ‘it seems required’ to do so. This slight hesitation is understandable. Who in
1924 had ever heard of a particle with two states of polarization? For some time,
this remained a rather obscure issue. After the discovery of the electron spin,
Ehrenfest asked Einstein ‘to tell [him] how the analogous hypothesis is to be stated
for light-corpuscles, in a relativistically correct way’ [E3]. As is well known, this
is a delicate problem since there exists, of course, no rest frame definition of spin
in this instance. Moreover, gauge invariance renders ambiguous the separation
into orbital and intrinsic angular momentum (see, e.g., [Jl]). It is not surprising,
therefore, that in 1926 the question of photon spin seemed quite confusing to Ein-
stein. In fact, he went so far as to say that he was ‘inclined to doubt whether the
angular momentum law can be maintained in the quantum theory. At any rate,
its significance is much less deep than that of the momentum law’ |E4). I believe
that this is an interesting comment on the state of the art some fifty years ago and
that otherwise not too much should be made of it.

Let us return to Bose. His new interpretation of Z* was in terms of ‘number of
cells,’ not ‘number of particles.’ This must have led him to follow Boltzmann’s
counting but to replace everywhere ‘particles’ by ‘cells,’ a procedure he neither did
nor could justify — but which gave the right answer. It may help to understand
Bose’s remark that he did not know that he was ‘doing something which was
really different from what Boltzmann would have done, from Boltzmann statis-
tics,’ if I recall at this point Boltzmann’s coarse-grained counting, which is dis-
cussed at more length in Section 4b.

Boltzmann, Partition N particles with total energy E over the one-particle
phase space cells W|, W 2 , . . . There are particles in Their mean energy is
E^. We have

N=Y.N^ E = Y. (23.5)

A A

The relative probability W of this coarse-grained state is

n 777 (23.6)

The equilibrium entropy S is given by

5= -f C

(23.7)

427

A LOSS OF IDENTITY: THE BIRTH OF QUANTUM STATISTICS

where C is a constant and follows from the extremal conditions

Yi «A^A(lna)* - InA:, + X - 0-'E^) = 0 (23.8)

which incorporate the constraints (a) hold N fixed and (b) hold E fixed.

Bose. Partition Z‘ into numbers p'„ where p\ is defined as the number of cells
which contain r quanta with frequency i/*. Let there be N" photons in all with this

frequency and let E be the total energy. Then

= E p'r

(23.9)

N'^Y ^p'

(23.10)

E = Y

(23.11)

and

N =YpP

(23.12)

is the total number of photons. Next Bose introduced his new coarse-grained
counting:

^=U (23.13)

. po p,'- ■ ■ ■

He then maximized IV as a function of the p’, holding Z’ and E fixed so that

Y ¥, 1 + lip: + ^ = 0 (23.14)

and then derived Planck’s law for E{v, T) by standard manipulations — and there-
with concluded his paper without further comments.

Bose considered his Ansatz (Eq. 23.13) to be ‘evident’ [B3). Nothing is further
from the truth. I venture to guess that to him the cell counting (Eq. 23.13) was
the perfect analog of Boltzmann’s particle counting (Eq. 23.6) and that his cell
constraint, hold Z* fixed, was similarly the analog of Boltzmann’s particle con-
straint, hold N fixed. Likewise, the two Lagrange parameters in Eq. 23.14 are
his analogs of the parameters in Eq. 23.8. Bose’s replacement of fixed N by fixed
Z* already implies that N is not conserved. The final irony is that the constraint
of fixed Z* is irrelevant: if one drops this constraint, then one must drop X* in Eq.
23.14. Even so, it is easily checked that one still finds Planck’s law! This is in
accordance with the now-familiar fact that Planck’s law follows from Bose statis-
tics with E held fixed as the only constraint. In summary, Bose’s derivation intro-
duced three new features:

428

THE QUANTUM THEORY

1 . Photon number nonconservation.

2. Bose’s cell partition numbers p\ are defined by asking how many particles are
in a cell. Boltzmann’s axiom of distinguishability is gone.

3. The Ansatz (Eq. 23.13) implies statistical independence of cells. Statistical
independence of particles is gone.

The astounding fact is that Bose was correct on all three counts. (In his paper,
he commented on none of them.) I believe there had been no such successful shot
in the dark since Planck introduced the quantum in 1900. Planck, too, had
counted in strange ways, as was subtly recalled by Einstein in his review, written
in 1924, of a new edition of Planck’s Wdrmestrahlung: ‘Planck’s law [was] derived
... by postulating statistical laws in the treatment of the interaction between pon-
derable matter and radiation which appear to be justified on the one hand because
of their simplicity, on the other hand because of their analogy to the corresponding
relations of the classical theory’ [E5].

Einstein continued to be intrigued by Bose’s paper. In an address given in
Lucerne on October 4, 1924, before the Schweizerische Naturforschende Gesell-
schaft, he stressed ‘the particular significance for our theoretical concepts’ of Bose’s
new derivation of Eq. 23.4 [E6]. By this time, he had already published his own
first paper on quantum statistics.

23c. Einstein

As long as Einstein lived, he never ceased to struggle with quantum physics. As
far as his constructive contributions to this subject are concerned, they came to an
end with a triple of papers, the first published in September 1924, the last two in
early 1925. In the true Einsteinian style, their conclusions are once again reached
by statistical methods, as was the case for all his important earlier contributions
to the quantum theory. The best-known result is his derivation of the Bose- Ein-
stein condensation phenomenon. I shall discuss this topic next and shall leave for
the subsequent section another result contained in these papers, a result that is
perhaps not as widely remembered even though it is more profound.

First, a postscript to Einstein’s light-quantum paper of 1905.

Its logic can be schematically represented in the following way.

Wien’s law 1

Einstein 1905: i Light-quanta

Gas analogy

An issue raised in Section 19c should be dealt with now. We know that BE is the
correct statistics when radiation is treated as a photon gas. Then how could Ein-
stein have correctly conjectured the existence of light-quanta using Boltzmann sta-
tistics? Answer: according to BE statistics, the most probable value (n,) of n, for
photons is given by (n.) * [exp {hvJkT) — 1]"’. This implies that («,) « 1 in

A LOSS OF IDENTITY: THE BIRTH OF QUANTUM STATISTICS

429

the Wien regime Therefore, up to an irrelevant* factor AH, Equations

23.2 and 23.3 coincide in the Wien limit. This asymptotic relation in the Wien
region fully justifies, ex post facto, Einstein’s extraordinary step forward in 1905!
Bose’s reasoning in 1924 went as follows:

Photons

Bose 1924:

Quantum statistics

and in 1924-5 Einstein came full circle:

Planck’s law

Einstein 1924-5:

Bose statistics
Photon analogy

The quantum gas

It was inevitable, one might say, that he would do so. if it is justified to conceive
of radiation as a quantum gas, then the analogy between the quantum gas and a
molecular gas must be a complete one’ [E7).

In his 1924 paper [ES], Einstein adopted Bose’s counting formula (Eq. 23.13),
but with two modifications. He needed, of course, the Z* appropriate for nonre-
lativistic particles with mass m:

h^Z* = 27r V(2my^^ (23.15)

2m£* = {pf

Second (and unlike Bose!), he needed the constraint that N be held fixed. This is
done by adding a term

- r\nA (23.16)

inside the parentheses of Eq. 23.14.** One of the consequences of the thus mod-
ified Eq. 23.14 is that the Lagrange multiplier (-InZ) is determined by

I s

(23.17)

Hence, Einstein noted, the ‘degeneracy parameter’ A must satisfy

A < 1 (23.18)

In his first paper [E8], Einstein discussed the regime in which A does not reach

*Thc A^! is irrelevant since it affects only C in Exj. 23.7. The constant C is interesting nevertheless.
For example, its value bears on the possibility of defining S in such a way that it becomes an extensive
thermodynamic variable. The interesting history of these normalization questions has been discussed
in detail by M. Klein (Kl).

**The term is defined as exp {—n/kT), where n is the chemical potential. Einstein, of course,
never introduced the superfluous X* into the parenthetical term. In Eqs. 23.16-23.22, 1 deviate from
Einstein’s notation.

430

THE QUANTUM THEORY

the critical value unity. He proceeded to the continuous limit, in which the sum
in Eq. 23.17 is replaced by an integral over phase space, and found

A<\:

i. —

V 3
p _ 4>S/2(^)

kT'~ 3

m-1

(23.19)

with V = V/ N. He then discussed the region A where the equation of state
(obtained by eliminating A between Eqs. 23.19) shows perturbative deviations
from the classical ideal gas. All this is good physics, though unusually straightfor-
ward for a man like Einstein.

In his second paper [E7], the most important one of the three, Einstein began
with the — T relation at /I = 1:

kT, =

}f_

(23.20)

and asked what happens if T drops below Tq (for given t^o)- His answer:

1 maintain that, in this case, a number of molecules steadily growing with
increasing density goes over in the first quantum state (which has zero kinetic
energy) while the remaining molecules distribute themselves according to the
parameter value A = 1. ... A separation is eflected; one'part condenses, the
rest remains a ‘saturated ideal gas.’ (E7)

He had come upon the first purely statistically derived example of a phase tran-
sition, which is now called Bose- Einstein condensation. 1 defer a few comments
on this phenomenon to the next section and turn to other important facets of the
three Einstein papers.

/. Einstein on Statistical Dependence. After the papers by Bose [B3] and the
first one by Einstein [E8] came out, Ehrenfest and others objected (so we read in
Einstein’s second paper [E7]) that 'the quanta and molecules, respectively, are not
treated as statistically independent, a fact that is not particularly emphasized in
our papers’ (i.e., [B31 and [E8)). Einstein replied, ‘This [objection] is entirely
correct’ [E7]. He went on to stress that the differences between the Boltzmann
and the BE counting ‘express indirectly a certain hypothesis on a mutual influence
of the molecules which for the time being is of a quite mysterious nature.’ With
this remark, Einstein came to the very threshold of the quantum mechanics of
identical particle systems. The mysterious influence is, of course, the correlation
induced by the requirement of totally symmetric wave functions.

2. Einstein on Indistinguishability. In order to illustrate further the differ-
ences between the new and the old counting of macrostates, Einstein cast IT in a

A LOSS OF IDENTITY: THE BIRTH OF QUANTUM STATISTICS

431

form alternative to Eq. 23.13. He counted the number of ways in which N* indis-
tinguishable particles in the dE* interval can be partitioned over the Z* cells. This
yields

w = Y[

(N^ + Z- - 1)!

m (z* - 1)!

(23.21)

Einstein’s Eq. 23.21 rather than Bose’s Eq. 23.13 is the one now used in all
textbooks.

3. Einstein on the Third Imw of Thermodynamics. As was noted at the end

of Section 20c, in 1914 Nernst introduced the hypothesis that the third law of
thermodynamics applies to gases. It was also mentioned that no sensible model of
a gas with that property was available at that time. In 1925 Einstein made his last
contribution to thermodynamics by pointing out that the BE gas does satisfy the
third law. (A Boltzmann gas does not do so, Einstein remarked.) Indeed, since all
particles go into the zero energy state as T^ 0, we have in this limit = N,
all other /V* = 0. Hence IT — 1 and 5 0 as T — 0. It was as important to

him that a molecular BE gas yield Nernst’s law as that a BE photon gas yield
Planck’s law.

4. Einstein and Nonconservation of Photons. After 1917 Einstein ceased to
write scientific articles on questions related to radiation.* The only mention of
radiation in the 1924-5 papers is that ‘the statistical method of Herr Bose and
myself is by no means beyond doubt, but seems only a posteriori justified by its
success for the case of radiation’ [El 1 ].

There can be no doubt that he must have noted the nonconservation of photons.
In his language, this is implemented by putting ^4 = 1 in Eq. 23.16. Yet 1 have
not found any reference to nonconservation, either in his scientific writings or in
the correspondence I have seen. I cannot state with certainty why he chose to be
silent on this and all further issues regarding photons. However, 1 do believe that
it is a fair guess that Einstein felt he would have nothing fundamental to say about
photons until such time as he could find his own way of dealing with the lack of
causality he had noted in 1917. Such a time never came.

Other physicists had followed Einstein’s work on quantum statistics with inter-
est. Lorentz invited him to speak on this subject at the 1927 Solvay congress. Ein-
stein’s reply, written in June 1927, may serve as a most appropriate preliminary
to my subsequent discussion of quantum mechanics.

I recall having committed myself to you to give a report on quantum statistics
at the Solvay congress. After much reflection back and forth, I come to the con-
viction that I am not competent [to give] such a report in a way that really

* Except for a brief refutation of an objection to his work on needle radiation [E91. I found a notice
by Einstein in 1930 announcing a new paper on radiation fluctuations [ElO]. his paper was never
published, however.

432

THE QUANTUM THEORY

corresponds to the state of things. The reason is that I have not been able to
participate as intensively in the modern development of the quantum theory as
would be necessary for this purpose. This is in part because I have on the whole
too little receptive talent for fully following the stormy developments, in part
also because I do not approve of the purely statistical way of thinking on which

the new theories are founded Up until now, I kept hoping to be able to

contribute something of value in Brussels; I have now given up that hope. I beg
you not to be angry with me because of that; 1 did not take this lightly but tried
with all my strength. . . . Perhaps Herr Fermi in Bologna ... or Langevin . . .
could do a good job. [El 2]

23d. Postscript on Bose-Einstein Condensation

(1) In December 1924, Einstein wrote to Ehrenfest, ‘From a certain tempera-
ture on, the molecules “condense” without attractive forces, that is, they accu-
mulate at zero velocity. The theory is pretty, but is there also some truth to it?’
1E13).

(2) In 1925, Einstein mentioned hydrogen, helium, and the electron gas as the
best possible candidates in which to observe his condensation phenomenon [EV).
In 1925, these were, of course, sensible proposals. Recall that the Fermi -Dirac
statistics was not discovered* until 1926 (FI, Dl], following Pauli’s enunciation
of the exclusion principle in 1925 (P2]. Even then, it took some time until it was
sorted out when BE and FD statistics apply respectively: referring to Dirac’s
paper [Dl], Pauli wrote in December 1926, ‘We shall take the point of view also
advocated by Dirac, that the Fermi, and not the Einstein -Bose, statistics applies
to the material gas’ [P3]. These matters were cleared up by 1927.

(3) In his 1925 paper, Einstein did not call the condensation phenomenon a
phase transition. According to Uhlenbeck (private communication), nobody real-
ized in 1925 that the existence of a phase transition was a ‘deep’ problem. In 1926,
Uhlenbeck himself raised an objection to Einstein’s treatment of the condensation
problem [Ulj. This critique was to lead to a more precise theoretical formulation
of the conditions under which phase transitions can occur. Uhlenbeck noted that
the quantity A® in Eq. 23.17 -► oo as -♦ 1 (for fixed T); hence also N
00 . Thus, if i4 1 , it is impossible to implement the constraint that is a fixed
finite number. Therefore A = 1 can be reached only asymptomatically and there
is no two-phase regime.

Uhlenbeck recently described the communications between Ehrenfest and Ein-
stein on this question [U2]. Uhlenbeck and Einstein were both right, however.
The point is that a sharp phase transition can occur only in the so-called ther-
modynamic limit 00 , F-* co^ v fixed. This view emerged in a morning-
long debate that took place during the van der Waals Centenary Conference in
November 1937. The issue was. Does the partition function contain the infor-
mation necessary to describe a sharp phase transition? The transition implies the

•Dirac has given a charming account of the lime sequence of these discoveries (02).

A LOSS OF identity: the birth of quantum statistics

433

existence of analytically distinct parts of isotherms. It was not clear how this could
come about. The debate was inconclusive, and Kramers, the chairman, put the
question to a vote. Uhlenbeck recalls that the ayes and nays were about evenly
divided. However, Kramers’ suggestion to go to the thermodynamic limit was
eventually realized to be the correct answer. Shortly afterward, Uhlenbeck with-
drew his objections to Einstein’s result, in a joint paper with his gifted student, the
late Boris Kahn (a Nazi victim) (K21.

(4) Until 1 938, the BE condensation had ‘the reputation of having only a purely
imaginary character’ [LI]. Recall that the Hel-Hell phase transition was not
discovered until 1928, by Willem Hendrik Keesom [K31. In 1938, Fritz London
proposed interpreting this helium transition as a BE condensation. Experimen-
tally, the transition point lies at 2.19 K. It is most encouraging that Eq. 23.20
gives 'T 3.1 K [L2]. It is generally believed but not proved that the difference
between these two values is due to the neglecting of intermolecular forces in the
theoretical derivations.

References

Bl. S. N. Bose, letter to A. Einstein, June 4, 1924.

B2. W. Blanpicd, Am. J. Phys. 40, 1212 (1972)

B3. S. N. Bose, Z. Phys. 26, 178 (1924).

B4. N. Bohr, Phil. Mag. 26, 1 (1913).

Dl, P. A. M. Dirac, Proc. Roy Soc. 112, 661 (1926).

D2. , History of Twentieth Century Physics, Varenna Summer School, pp. 133-4.

Academic Press, New York, 1977.

El. A. Einstein, letter to P. Ehrenfest, July 12, 1924.

E2. , AdPn, 132 (1905)

E3. P. Ehrenfest, letter to A Einstein, April 7, 1926.

E4. A. Einstein, letter to P. Ehrenfest, April 12, 1926.

E5. , Deutsche Literaturzeitung, 1924, p. 1154

E6. , Verb. Schw. Naturf. Ges. 105, 85 (1924).

E7. , PAW, 1925, p. 3.

E8. , PAW, 1924, p. 261.

E9. , Z. Phys. 31, 1S4{\925).

ElO. , PAW, 1930, p. 543

Ell. , PAW, 1925, p. 18.

E12. , letter to H. A. Lorentz, June 17, 1927.

El 3. , letter to P. Ehrenfest, November 29, 1924.

FI. E. Fermi, Z. Phys. 36, 902 (1926).

HI. W. Heisenberg, Z. Phys. 38, 411 (1926).

Jl. J. M. Jauch and F. Rohrlich, The Theory oj Photons and Electrons, p. 40. Addi-
son-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1955.

Kl. M. Klein, Proc. Kon. Ned. Akad. Wetensch. Amsterdam, 62, 41, 51 (1958).

K2. B. Kahn and G. E. Uhlenbeck, Physica 4, 399 (1938).

K3. W. H. Keesom, Helium. Elsevier, New York, 1942.

434

THE QUANTUM THEORY

LI. F. London. Nature 141, 643 (1938).

L2. , Phys, Rev. 54, 1947 (1938).

Ml. J. Mehra, Biogr. Mem. Fell. Roy. Soc. 21, 117 (1975).

PI. M. Planck, Verh. Deutsch. Phys. Ges. 2, 237 (1900).

P2. W. Pauli, Z. Phys. 31, 625 (1925).

P3. , Z. Phys. 41, (1927).

SI. E. Salaman, Encounter, April 1979, p. 19.

Ul. G. E. Uhlenbeck, ‘Over Statistische Methoden in de Theorie der Quanta,’ PhD
thesis, Nyhoff, the Hague, 1927.

U2. , Proceedings Einstein Centennial Symposium 1979 (H. Woolf, Ed.) Addison-

Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1980.

Einstein as aTransitional Figure:
The Birth of Wave Mechanics

We now leave the period of the old quantum theory and turn to the time of tran-
sition, during which matter waves were being discussed by a tiny group of phys-
icists at a time when matter wave mechanics had not yet been discovered. This
period begins in September 1923 with two brief communications by Louis de
Broglie to the French Academy of Sciences (Bl, B2]. It ends in January 1926
with Schroedinger’s first paper on wave mechanics [SI ]. The main purpose of this
chapter is to stress Einstein’s key role in these developments, his influence on de
Broglie, de Broglie’s subsequent influence on him, and, finally, the influence of
both on Schroedinger.

Neither directly nor indirectly did Einstein contribute to an equally fundamen-
tal development that preceded Schroedinger’s discovery of wave mechanics: the
discovery of matrix mechanics by Heisenberg [HI]. Therefore, I shall have no
occasion in this book to comment in any detail on Heisenberg’s major
achievements.

24a. From Einstein to de Broglie

During the period that began with Einstein’s work on needle rays (1917) and
ended with Debye’s and Compton’s papers on the Compton effect (1923), there
were a few other theoreticians also doing research on photon questions. Of those,
the only one* whose contribution lasted was de Broglie.

De Broglie had finished his studies before the First World War. In 1919, after
a long tour of duty with the French forces, he Joined the physics laboratory headed
by his brother Maurice, where X-ray photoeffects and X-ray spectroscopy were
the main topics of study. Thus he was much exposed to questions concerning the
nature of electromagnetic radiation, a subject on which he published several
papers. In one of these [B6], de Broglie evaluated independently of Bose (and

♦The other ones I know of are Brillouin (B31, VVoIfke IWl), Boihe [B4], Bateman [BSf and Orn-
stcin and Zernike [01].

435

436

THE QUANTUM THEORY

published before him) the density of radiation states in terms of particle (photon)
language. That was in October 1923 — one month after his enunciation of the
epochal new principle that particle-wave duality should apply not only to radia-
tion but also to matter. ‘After long reflection in solitude and meditation, I suddenly
had the idea, during the year 1923, that the discovery made by Einstein in 1905
should be generalized by extending it to all material particles and notably to elec-
trons’ [B7].

He made the leap in his September 10, 1923, paper [BIJ: E = hv shall hold
not only for photons but also for electrons, to which he assigns a ‘fictitious asso-
ciated wave.’ In his September 24 paper (B2], he indicated the direction in which
one ‘should seek experimental confirmations of our ideas’: a stream of electrons
traversing an aperture whose dimensions are small compared with the wavelength
of the electron waves ‘should show diflfraction phenomena.’

Other important aspects of de Broglie’s work are beyond the scope of this book
(for more details, see, e.g.. [Kl]). The mentioned articles were extended to form
his doctoral thesis [B7], which he defended on November 25, 1924. Einstein
received a copy of this thesis from Langevin, who was one of de Broglie’s exam-
iners. A letter to Lorentz (in December) shows that Einstein was impressed and
also that he had found a new application of de Broglie’s ideas:

A younger brother of . . . de Broglie has undertaken a very interesting attempt
to interpret the Bohr-Sommerfeld quantum rules (Paris dissertation 1924). 1
believe it is a first feeble ray of light on this worst of our physics enigmas. 1,
too, have found something which speaks for his construction. (El|

24b. From de Broglie to Einstein

In 1909 and again in 1917, Einstein had drawn major conclusions about radiation
from the study of fluctuations around thermal equilibrium. It goes without saying
that he would again examine fluctations when, in 1924, he turned his attention
to the molecular quantum gas.

In order to appreciate what he did this time, it is helpful to again present the
formula (Eq. 21.5) given earlier for the mean square energy fluctuation of elec-
tromagnetic radiation:

Vdv (24.1)

Put Vpdv-n{v)hv and (e^) = ^{y)\hvf. The term n{v) can be interpreted as
the average number of quanta in the energy interval dp, and A{py as the mean
square fluctuation of this number. One can now write Eq. 24.1 in the form

AW - ,w +

(24.2)

EINSTEIN AS A TRANSITIONAL FIGURE: THE BIRTH OF WAVE MECHANICS

437

where Z{v) is the number of states per interval dv given in Eq. 23.4. In his paper
submitted on January 8, 1925, Einstein showed that Eq. 24.2 holds equally well
for his quantum gas, as long as one defines v in the latter case by E = hp = py
2m and uses Eq. 23.15 instead of Eq. 23.4 for the number of states [E2].

When discussing radiation in 1909, Einstein recognized the second term of Eq.
24. 1 as the familiar wave term and the first one as the unfamiliar particle term.
When in 1924 he revisited the fluctuation problem for the case of the quantum
gas, he noted a reversal of roles. The first term, at one time unfamiliar for radia-
tion, was now the old fluctuation term for a Poisson distribution of (distinguish-
able) particles. What to do with the second term (which incorporates indistin-
guishability effects of particles) for the gas case? Since this term was associated
with waves in the case of radiation, Einstein was led to ‘interpret it in a corre-
sponding way for the gas, by associating with the gas a radiative phenomenon’
[E2]. He added, ‘I pursue this interpretation further, since I believe that here we
have to do with more than a mere analogy.’

But what were the waves?

At this point, Einstein turned to de Broglie’s thesis [87], ‘a very notable pub-
lication. He suggested that a de Broglie-type wavefield should be associated with
the gas and pointed out that this assumption enabled him to interpret the second
term in Eq. 24.2. Just as de Broglie had done, he also noted that a molecular
beam should show diffraction phenomena but added that the effect should be
extremely small for manageable apertures. He also remarked that the de Broglie
wavefield had to be a scalar (the polarization factor is 2 for Eq. 23.4, as noted
above, but it is 1 for Eq. 23.15!).

It is another of Einstein’s feats that he would be led to state the necessity of the
existence of matter waves from the analysis of fluctuations. One may wonder what
the history of twentieth century physics would have looked like had Einstein
pushed the analogy still further. However, with the achievement of an indep)en-
dent argument for the particle- wave duality of matter, the twenty-year pjeriod of
highest scientific creativity in Einstein’s life, at a level probably never equalled,
came to an end.

Postscript^ Summer 1978. In the course of preparing this chapter, I noticed
a recollection by Pauli of a statement made by Einstein during a physics meeting
held in Innsbruck in 1924. According to Pauli, Einstein proposed in the course of
that meeting ‘to search for interference and diffraction phenomena with molecular
beams’ [PI]. On checking the dates of that meeting, I found them to be September
21-27. This intrigued me. Einstein arrived at the particle-wave duality of matter
via a route that was independent of the one taken by de Broglie. The latter
defended his thesis in November. If Pauli’s memory is correct, then Einstein made
his remark about two months prior to that time. Could he have come upon the
wave properties of matter independently of de Broglie? After all, Einstein had
been thinking about the molecular gas since July. The questions arise, When did

438

THE QUANTUM THEORY

Einstein become aware of de Broglie’s work? In particular, when did he receive
de Broglie’s thesis from Langevin? Clearly, it would be most interesting to know
what Professor de Broglie might have to say about these questions. Accordingly
I wrote to him. He was kind enough to reply. With his permission, I quote from
his answers.

De Broglie does not believe that Einstein was aware of his three short publi-
cations [Bl, B2, B3] written in 1923. ‘Nevertheless, since Einstein would receive
the Comptes Rendus and since he knew French very well, he might have noticed
my articles’ [B8]. De Broglie noted further that he had given Langevin the first
typed copy of his thesis early in 1924. ‘I am certain that Einstein knew of my
These since the spring of 1924’ [B9). This is what happened. ‘When in 1923 I
had written the text of the These de Doctorat which I wanted to present in order
to obtain the Doctorat es Sciences, I had three typed copies made. 1 handed one
of these to M. Langevin so that he might decide whether this text could be
accepted as a These. M. Langevin, probablement un peu etonne par la nouveaute
de mes idees,* asked me to furnish him with a second typed copy of my These for
transmittal to Einstein. It was then that Einstein declared, after having read my
work, that my ideas seemed quite interesting to him. This made Langevin decide
to accept my work’ [B8].

Thus, Einstein was not only one of the three fathers of the quantum theory,
but also the sole godfather of wave mechanics.

24c. From de Broglie and Einstein to Schroedinger

Late in 1925, Schroedinger completed an article entitled ‘On Einstein’s Gas The-
ory’ [S2]. It was his last paper prior to his discovery of wave mechanics. Its con-
tents are crucial to an understanding of the genesis of that discovery 1K2].

In order to follow Schroedinger’s reasoning, it is necessary to recall first a der-
ivation of Planck’s formula given by Debye in 1910 | D1 ). Consider a cavity filled
with radiation oscillators in thermal equilibrium. The spectral density is
T)/c^, where € is the equilibrium energy of a radiation field oscillator with
frequency u. Debye introduced the quantum prescription that the only admissible
energies of the oscillator shall be nhu, n =0, 1, 2, .... In equilibrium, the nth
energy level is weighted with its Boltzmann factor. Hence e = Znht/yyLy”, y
= exp ( — hvfkT). This yields Planck’s law.**

Now back to Schroedinger. By his own admission, he was not much taken with
the new BE statistics [S2]. Instead, he suggested, why not evade the new statistics

•Probably a bit astonished by the novelty of my ideas.

••This derivation differs from Planck’s in that the latter quantized material rather than radiation
oscillators. It differs from Bose’s photon gas derivation in that here the energy nhv is interpreted as
the nth state of a single oscillator, not (as was done in Chapter 23) as a state of n particles with
energy hv.

EINSTEIN AS A TRANSITIONAL FIGURE: THE BIRTH OF WAVE MECHANICS

439

by treating Einstein s molecular gas according to the Debye method? That is, why
not start from a wave picture of the gas and superimpose on that a quantization
condition a la Debye? Now comes the key sentence in the article: That means
nothing else but taking seriously the de Broglie- Einstein wave theory of moving
particles [S2). And that is just what Schroedinger did. It is not necessary to discuss
further details of this article, which was received by the publisher on December
25, 1925.

Schroedinger’s next paper was received on January 27, 1926 [SI]. It contains
his equation for the hydrogen atom. Wave mechanics was born. In this new paper,
Schroedinger acknowledged his debt to de Broglie and Einstein:

I have recently shown [S2] that the Einstein gas theory can be founded on the
consideration of standing waves which obey the dispersion law of de Broglie.
The above considerations about the atom could have been presented as a gen-
eralization of these considerations.

In April 1926, Schroedinger again acknowledged the influence of de Broglie and
‘brief but infinitely far-seeing remarks by Einstein’ [S3].

References

Bl. L. de Broglie, C. R. Acad. Sci. Pans 177, 507 (1923).

B2. , C R. Acad. Set. Pans 177, 548 (1923)

B3. L. Brillouin, J. de Phys 2, 142 (1921).

B4. W. Bothe, Z. Phys. 20, 145 (1923).

B5. H Bateman, Phil. Mag. 46, 977 (1923)

B6. L. de Broglie, C. R. Acad. Set. Pans 177, 630 (1923)

B7. , preface to his reedited 1924 PhD thesis, Recherches sur la Theone des

Quanta, p. 4. Masson, Paris, 1963.

B8. , letter to A. Pais, August 9, 1978

B9. , letter to A. Pais, September 26, 1978.

Dl. P Debye, /IriP 33, 1427 (1910).

El. A. Einstein, letter to H. A. Lorentz, December 16, 1^24.

E2. , PAW, 1925. p. 3.

HI. W. Heisenberg, Z. Phys. 33, 879 (1926).

Kl. F. Kubli, Arch. Hist. Ex. Sci. 7, 26 (1970).

K2. M. Klein, Nat. Phil. 3, 1 (1964).

01. L. S. Ornstein and F. Zernike, Proc. K. Akad. Amsterdam 28, 280 (1919).

PI. W. Pauli in Albert Einstein: Philosopher- Scientist (P. A. Schilpp, Ed.), p. 156.
Tudor, New York, 1949

51. E. Schroedinger, AdP 79^ 361 (1926)

52. , Phys. Zeitschr. 27, 95 (1926).

53. , AdP 79, 734, (1926); footnote on p. 735.

Wl. M. Wolfke, Phys. Zeitschr. 22, 315 (1921).

Einstein’s Response
to the New Dynamics

Everyone familiar with modern physics knows that Einstein’s attitude regarding
quantum mechanics was one of skepticism. No biography of him fails to mention
his saying that God does not throw dice. He was indeed given to such utterances
(as I know from experience), and stronger ones, such as it seems hard to look in
God’s cards. But I cannot for a moment believe that He plays dice and makes use
of “telepathic” means (as the current quantum theory alleges He does)’ [El].
However, remarks such as these should not create the impression that Einstein
had abandoned active interest in quantum problems in favor of his quest for a
unified field theory. Far from it. In fact, even in the search for a unified theory,
the quantum riddles were very much on his mind, as I shall discuss in Chapter
26. In the present chapter, I shall describe how Einstein’s position concerning
quantum mechanics evolved in the course of time. To some extent this is reflected
in his later scientific papers. It becomes evident more fully in several of his more
autobiographical writings and in his correspondence. My own understanding of
his views has been helped much by discussions with him.

To begin with, I turn to the period 1925-31, during which he was much con-
cerned with the question. Is quantum mechanics consistent?

25a« 1925-31: The Debate Begins

Schroedinger was not the only one who had profited from the study of Einstein’s
three papers on the new gas theory. Half a year before Schroedinger’s first paper
on wave mechanics, Walter Elsasscr, likewise acknowledging the stimulus of Ein-
stein’s articles, suggested that slow electrons would be ideally suited for testing
‘[Einstein’s] assumption that to every translational motion of a particle one must
associate a wavefield which determines the kinematics of the particle’ [E2]. He
also pointed out that the existing experimental results of Ramsauer, Davisson and
Kunsman, and others already seemed to give evidence of diffraction and interfer-
ence of matter waves. Heisenberg wrote to Pauli that, after having studied Ein-
stein’s papers, he was enthusiastic about Elsasser’s ideas [Hlj.

Also Einstein himself continued thinking about the meaning of wavefields, old

440

Einstein’s response to the new dynamics

441

and new. Eugene Wigner, who was in Berlin in 1925, told me that Einstein had
at that time the idea of wavefields serving as Tiihrungsfelder,’ guiding fields, for
light-quanta or other particles, one field for each particle. ‘Einstein, though in a
way he was fond of [this idea], never published it’ [W1 ] since his idea of one field
per particle was incompatible with strict energy -momentum conservation — a dif-
ficulty which was overcome when Schroedinger introduced one guiding field, the
Schroedinger wave function, for joint particle configurations.

As was mentioned earlier, Einstein considered his work on the quantum gas
only a temporary digression. During the very early days of quantum mechanics,*
we find him ‘working strenuously on the further development of a theory on the
connection between gravitation and electricity’ [E3]. Yet the great importance of
the new developments in quantum theory was not lost on him. Bose, who visited
Berlin in November 1925, recalled that ‘Einstein was very excited about the new
quantum mechanics. He wanted me to try to see what the statistics of light-quanta
and the transition probabilities of radiation would look like in the new theory’
[Ml]. It was not Bose but Dirac who answered that question by giving the
dynamic derivation of expressions for Einstein’s A and B coefficients in a paper
in which he laid the foundations of quantum electrodynamics [Dl]. Initially, Ein-
stein’s reaction to Dirac’s contributions was decidedly negative. In 1926 he wrote
to Ehrenfest, ‘I have trouble with Dirac. This balancing on the dizzying path
between genius and madness is awful’ [E4], and again, a few days later, ‘I don’t
understand Dirac at all (Compton effect)’ (E51. Some years later, however, he
wrote admiringly of ‘Dirac, to whom, in my opinion, we owe the most logically
perfect presentation of (quantum mechanics]’ [E6].

Let us return to the fall of 1925. Einstein’s deep interest in quantum mechanics
must have led him to write to Heisenberg soon alter the publication of the latter’s
paper [H2].** All the letters from Einstein to Heisenberg have been lost. How-
ever, a number of letters from Heisenberg to Einstein are extant. One of these
(dated November 30, 1925) is clearly in response to an earlier letter from Einstein
to Heisenberg in which Einstein appears to have commented on the new quantum
mechanics. One remark by Heisenberg is of particular interest. You are probably
right that our formulation of quantum mechanics is more adapted to the Bohr-
Kramers- Slater attitude, but this [BKS theory] constitutes, in fact, one aspect of
the radiation phenomena. The other is your light-quantum theory, and we have
the hope that the validity of the energy and momentum laws in our quantum
mechanics will one day make possible the connection with your theory’ 1H4]. I
find it remarkable that Einstein apparently sensed that there was some connection
between the BKS theory and quantum mechanics. No such connection exists, of

•Recall that Heisenberg’s first paper on this subject was completed in July 1925, Schroedinger’s in
January 1926.

••The two men met for the first time in the spring of 1926. See [H31 for an attempt at reconstruction
of their early discussions.

442

THE QUANTUM THEORY

course. Nevertheless, the BKS proposal contains statistical features,* as we have
seen. Could Einstein have surmised as early as 1925 that some statistical element
is inherent in the quantum mechanical description?

During the following months, Einstein vacillated in his reaction to the Heisen-
berg theory. In December 1925 he expressed misgivings [E7], but in March 1926
he wrote to the Borns, The Heisenberg- Born concepts leave us all breathless and
have made a deep impression on all theoretically oriented people. Instead of a dull
resignation, there is now a singular tension in us sluggish people’ [ES]. The next
month he expressed again his conviction that the Heisenberg- Born approach was
off the track. That was in a letter in which he congratulated Schroedinger on his
new advance [E9]. In view of the scientific links between Einstein’s and Schroe-
dinger’s work, it is not surprising that Einstein would express real enthusiasm
about wave mechanics: ‘Schroedinger has come out with a pair of wonderful
papers on the quantum rules’, he wrote in May 1926 [ElO). It was the last time
he would write approvingly about quantum mechanics.

There came a parting of ways.

Nearly a year passed after Heisenberg’s paper before there was a first clarifi-
cation of the conceptual basis of quantum mechanics. It began with Born’s obser-
vation in June 1926 that the absolute square of a Schroedinger wave function is
to be interpreted as a probability density. Born’s brief and fundamental paper goes
to the heart of the problem of determinism. Regarding atomic collisions he wrote:

One does not get an answer to the question, What is the state after collision?
but only to the question, How probable is a given elfect of the collision? . .
From the standpoint of our quantum mechanics, there is no quantity [Grosze)
which causally fixes the effect of a collision in an individual event. Should we
hope to discover such properties later . and determine [them] in individual
events? ... I myself am inclined to renounce determinism in the atomic world,
but that is a philosophical question for which physical arguments alone do not
set standards. [Bl|

One month later. Born wrote a more elaborate sequel to this paper, in which he
pointed out that the starting point of his considerations was ‘a remark by Einstein
on the relation between [a] wavefield and light-quanta; he [E.] said approximately
that waves are there only to point out the path to the corpuscular light-quanta,

•Heisenberg remarked much later that ‘the attempt at interpretation by Bohr, Kramers, and Slater
nevertheless contained some very important features of the later correct interpretation (of quantum
mechanics],’ (H5], I do not share this view, but shall not argue the issue beyond what has been said
in Chapter 22.

EINSTEIN’S RESPONSE TO THE NEW DYNAMICS

443

and spoke in this sense of a “Gespensterfeld”’, ghost field [B2], clearly a reference
to Einstein’s idea of a ‘Fuhrungsfeld.’ Shortly thereafter, Born wrote to Einstein:

My idea to consider Schroedinger’s wavefield as a ‘Gespensterfeld’ in your sense

of the word proves to be more useful all the time The probability field

propagates, of course, not in ordinary space but in phase space (or configuration
space). [B3]*

Once more, but now for the last time, we encounter Einstein as a transitional
figure in the period of the birth of quantum mechanics.

Born’s papers had a mixed initial reception. Several leading physicists found it
hard if not impossible to swallow the abandonment of causality in the classical
sense, among them Schroedinger. More than once, Bohr mentioned to me that
Schroedinger told him he might not have published his papers had he been able
to foresee what consequences they would unleash.** Einstein’s position in the
years to follow can be summarized succinctly by saying that he took exception to
every single statement in Born’s papers and in the letter Born subsequently wrote
to him. His earliest expressions of lasting dissent I know of date from December
1926 and are, in fact, contained in his reply to one of Born’s letters: ‘Quantum
mechanics is very impressive. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real
thing. The theory produces a g(X)d deal but hardly brings us closer to the secret
of the Old One. I am at all events convinced that lie does not play dice. Waves
in 3n-dimensional space whose velocity is regulated by potential energy (e.g., rub-
ber bands) ...’[Ell].

‘Einstein’s verdict . . . came as a hard blow’ to Born [B4]. There are other
instances as well in which Einstein’s reactions were experienced with a sense of
loss, of being abandoned in battle by a venerated leader. Thus Goudsmit told me
of a conversation that took place in mid- 1927 (to the best of his recollection [Gl])
between Ehrenfest and himself. In tears, Ehrenfest said that he had to make a
choice between Bohr’s and Einstein’s position and that he could not but agree with
Bohr. Needless to say, Einstein’s reactions affected the older generation more
intensely than the younger.

Of the many important events in 1927, four are particularly significant for the
present account.

February 1927. In a lecture given in Berlin, Einstein is reported to have said
that ‘what nature demands from us is not a quantum theory or a wave theory;
rather, nature demands from us a synthesis of these two views which thus far has
exceeded the mental powers of physicists’ [E12|. At this point in the developments,
as others are about to take over, it should be recalled one more time that as early

•This important letter is not included in the published Born- Einstein correspondence. 1 thank John
Stachel for drawing my attention to its existence.

••Schroedinger retained reservations on the inierpretatton of quantum mechantes for the rest of his
life (SI |.

444

THE QUANTUM THEORY

as 1909 Einstein had been the first to stress the need for incorporating a particle -
wave duality in the foundations of physical theory (see Section 21a).

March 1927. Heisenberg states the uncertainty principle [H6]. (In this paper,
Heisenberg, too, referred to ‘Einstein’s discussions of the relation between waves
and light-quanta.’) In June 1927 Heisenberg writes a letter to Einstein which
begins, ‘Many cordial thanks for your kind letter; although I really do not know
anything new, I would nevertheless like to write once more why I believe that
indeterminism, that is, the nonvalidity of rigorous causality, is necessary [his ital-
ics] and not just consistently possible’ [H7]. This letter is apparently in response
to another lost letter by Einstein, triggered, most probably, by Heisenberg’s work
in March. I shall return to Heisenberg’s important letter in Chapter 26. 1 mention
its existence at this point only in order to emphasize once again that Einstein did
not react to these new developments as a passive bystander. In fact, at just about
that time, he was doing his own research on quantum mechanics (his first, I
believe). ‘Does Schroedinger’s wave mechanics determine the motion of a system
completely or only in the statistical sense?’* he asked. Heisenberg had heard
indirectly that Einstein ‘had written a paper in which you . . . advocate the view
that it should be possible after all to know the orbits of particles more precisely
than I would wish.’ He asked for more information ‘especially because I myself
have thought so much about these questions and only came to believe in the uncer-
tainty relations after many pangs of conscience, though now I am entirely con-
vinced’ [H8]. Einstein eventually withdrew his paper.

September 16, 1927. At the Volta meeting in Como (Einstein had been invited
but did not attend), Bohr enunciates for the first time the principle of comple-
mentarity: ‘The very nature of the quantum theory . . . forces us to regard the
space-time coordination and the claim of causality, the union of which character-
izes the classical theories, as complementary but exclusive features of the descrip-
tion, symbolizing the idealization of observation and definition, respectively’ [B5j.

October 1927. The fifth Solvay Conference convenes. All the founders of the
quantum theory were there, from Planck, Einstein, and Bohr to de Broglie, Hei-
senberg, Schroedinger, and Dirac. During the sessions, ‘Einstein said hardly any-
thing beyond presenting a very simple objection to the probability
interpretation. . . . Then he fell back into silence’ [B5a]. As was mentioned in
Chapter 23, Einstein had declined an invitation to give a paper on quantum sta-
tistics at that conference.

However, the formal meetings were not the only place for discussion. All par-
ticipants were housed in the same hotel, and there, in the dining room, Einstein
was much livelier. Otto Stem has given this first-hand account**:

*This is the title of a paper Einstein submitted for the May 5, 1927, meeting of the Prussian Acad-
emy in Berlin. The records show that the paper was in print when Einstein requested by telephone
that it be withdrawn. The unpublished manuscript is in the Einstein archive. See also [K1].

**In a discussion with Res Jost, taped on December 2, 1961. I am very grateful to Jost for making
available to me a transcript of part of this discussion.

EINSTEIN’S RESPONSE TO THE NEW DYNAMICS

445

Einstein came down to breakfast and expressed his misgivings about the new
quantum theory, every time [he] had invented some beautiful experiment from
which one saw that [the theory] did not work. . . . Pauli and Heisenberg, who
were there, did not pay much attention, ‘ach was, das stimmt schon, das stimmt
schon’ [ah, well, it will be all right, it will be all right]. Bohr, on the other hand,
reflected on it with care and in the evening, at dinner, we were all together and
he cleared up the matter in detail.

Thus began the great debate between Bohr and Einstein. Both men refined and
sharpened their positions in the course of time. No agreement between them was
ever reached. Between 1925 and 1931, the only objection by Einstein that
appeared in print in the scientific literature is the one at the 1927 Solvay confer-
ence [El 3]. However, there exists a masterful account of the Bohr- Einstein dia-
logue during these years, published by Bohr in 1949 [B6]. I have written else-
where about the profound role that the discussions with Einstein played in Bohr’s
life [PI].

The record of the Solvay meeting contains only minor reactions to Einstein’s
comments. Bohr s later article analyzed them in detail. Let us consider next the
substance of Einstein’s remarks.

Einstein’s opening phrase tells more about him than does many a book: ‘Je dois
m’excuser de n’avoir pas approfondi la mecanique des quanta,’ I must apologize
for not having penetrated quantum mechanics deeply enough [El 3]*.

He then went on to discuss an experiment in which a beam of electrons hits a
fixed screen with an aperture in it. The transmitted electrons form a diffraction
pattern, which is observed on a second screen. Question: does quantum mechanics
give a complete description of the individual electron events in this experiment?
His answer: this cannot be. For let A and B be two distinct spots on the second
screen. If I know that an individual electron arrives at A, then I know instanta-
neously that it did not arrive at B. But this implies a peculiar instantaneous action
at a distance between A and B contrary to the relativity postulate. Yet (Einstein
notes) in the Geiger- Bothe experiment on the Compton effect [B7], there is no
limitation of principle to the accuracy with which one can observe coincidences in
individual processes, and that without appeal to action at a distance. This circum-
stance adds to the sense of incompleteness of the description for diffraction.

Quantum mechanics provides the following answer to Einstein’s query. It does
apply to individual processes, but the uncertainty principle defines and delimits
the optimal amount of information obtainable in a given experimental arrange-

*Thc original German text reads, ich [bin] mir des Umstandes bewusst dass ich in das Wesen der
Quantenmechanik nicht tief genug eingedrungen bin’ [E14].

446

THE QUANTUM THEORY

ment. This delimitation differs incomparably from the restrictions on information
inherent in the coarse-grained description of events in classical statistical mechan-
ics. There the restrictions are wisely self-imposed in order to obtain a useful
approximation to a description in terms of an ideally knowable complete specifi-
cation of momenta and positions of individual particles. In quantum mechanics,
the delimitations mentioned earlier are not self-imposed but are renunciations of
first principle (on the fine-grained level, one might say). It is true that one would
need action at a distance if one were to insist on a fully causal description involving
the localization of the electron at every stage of the experiment on hand. Quantum
mechanics denies that such a description is called for and asserts that, in this
experiment, the final position of an individual electron cannot be predicted with
certainty. Quantum mechanics nevertheless makes a prediction in this case con-
cerning the probability of an electron arriving at a given spot on the second screen.
The verification of this prediction demands, of course, that the ‘one-electron exper-
iment’ be repeated as often as necessary to obtain this probability distribution with
the desired accuracy.

Nor is there a conflict with Geiger- Bothe, since now one refers to another
experimental arrangement in which localization in space- lime is achieved, but
this time at the price of renouncing information on sharp energy -momentum
properties of the particles observed in coincidence. From the point of view of quan-
tum mechanics, these renunciations are expressions of laws of nature. They are
also applications of the saying, ‘II faut reculer pour mieux sauter,’ It is necessary
to take a step back in order to jump better. As we shall see, what was and is an
accepted renunciation to others was an intolerable abdication in Einstein’s eyes.
On this score, he was never prepared to give up anything.

I have dwelt at some length on this simple problem since it contains the germ
of Einstein’s position, which he stated more explicitly in later years. Meanwhile,
the debate in the corridors between Bohr and Einstein continued during the sixth
Solvay Conference (on magnetism) in 1930. This time Einstein thought he had
found a counterexample to the uncertainty principle. The argument was inge-
nious. Consider a box having in one of its walls a hole that can be opened or closed
by a shutter controlled by a clock inside the box. The box is filled with radiation.
Weigh the box. Set the shutter to open for a brief interval during which a single
photon escapes. Weigh the box again, some time later. Then (in principle) one
has found to arbitrary accuracy both the photon energy and its time of passage,
in conflict with the energy-time uncertainty principle.

‘It was quite a shock for Bohr ... he did not see the solution at once. During
the whole evening he was extremely unhappy, going from one to the other and
trying to persuade them that it couldn’t be true, that it would be the end of physics
if Einstein were right; but he couldn’t produce any refutation. I shall never forget
the vision of the two antagonists leaving the club [ of the Fondation Universitaire]:
Einstein a tall majestic figure, walking quietly, with a somewhat ironical smile,

EINSTEIN’S RESPONSE TO THE NEW DYNAMICS

447

Bohr’s drawing of Einstein’s clock-in-the-box experiment [B6]. (Reproduced with the
kind permission of Professor A. Schilpp.)

and Bohr trolling near him, very excited The next morning came Bohr’s

triumph’ [Rl].

Bohr later illustrated his arguments [B6] with the help of the experimental
arrangement reproduced above. The initial weighing is performed by recording
the position of the pointer attached to the box relative to the scale attached to the
fixed frame. The loss of weight resulting from the escape of the photon is com-
pensated by a load (hung underneath the box) that returns the pointer to its initial
position with a latitude A^. Correspondingly, the weight measurement has an
uncertainty Am. The added load imparts to the box a momentum which we can
measure with an accuracy A/? delimited by A/?A(7 h. Obviously A/? < /|^Am,

448

THE QUANTUM THEORY

where t is the time taken to readjust the pointer and g is the gravitational accel-
eration. Thus, tgAmAq > h. Next, Bohr used the red shift formula*: the uncer-
tainty Aq of the position of the clock in the gravitational field implies an uncer-
tainty At = c'^gtAq in the determination of t. Hence, c^AmAt = AEAt > h.
Thus the accuracy with which the energy of the photon is measured restricts the
precision with which its moment of escape can be determined, in accordance with
the uncertainty relations for energy and time.

Note that every one of the many details in the figure serves an experimental
purpose: the heavy bolts fix the position of the scale along which the pointer
moves, the spring guarantees the mobility of the box in the gravitational field, the
weight attached to the box serves to readjust its position, and so on. There was
nothing fanciful in Bohr’s insistence on such details. Rather he had them drawn
in order to illustrate that, since the results of all physical measurements are
expressed in classical language, it is necessary to specify in detail the tools of mea-
surement in that language as well.

After this refutation by Bohr, Einstein ceased his search for inconsistencies. By
1931 his position on quantum mechanics had undergone a marked change.

First of all, his next paper on quantum mechanics [El 5], submitted in February
1931, shows that he had accepted Bohr’s criticism.** It deals with a new variant
of the clock-in-the-box experiment. Experimental information about one particle
is used to make predictions about a second particle. This paper, a forerunner of
the Einstein- Podolsky- Rosen article to be discussed below, need not be remem-
bered for its conclusions.!

A far more important expression of Einstein’s opinions is found in a letter he
wrote the following September. In this letter, addressed to the Nobel committee
in Stockholm, Einstein nominated Heisenberg and Schroedinger for the Nobel
prize. In his movitation, he said about quantum mechanics, ‘Diese Lehre enthalt
nach meiner Oberzeugung ohne Zweifel ein Stuck endgiiltiger Wahrheit.’! Ein-
stein himself was never greatly stirred by honors and distinctions. Even so, his
nominations reveal a freedom of spirit and a generosity of mind. In addition, they
show most clearly his thoughts: he came to accept that quantum mechanics was
not an aberration but rather a truly professional contribution to physics.

* Recall that the only ingredients for the derivation of this formula arc the special relativistic time
dilation and the equivalence principle.

**The Gedankenexperiment in this paper involved a time measurement. The authors take care to
arrange things so that ‘the rate of the clock ... is not disturbed by the gravitational effects involved
in weighing the box.’

fThe authors arc ‘forced to conclude that there can be no method for measuring the momentum of
a particle without changing its value,’ a statement which, of course, is unacceptable.

!‘l am convinced that this theory undoubtedly contains a part of the ultimate truth.’ Einstein had
already proposed Heisenberg and Schroedinger in 1928, and proposed Schroedinger again in 1932
(see Chapter 31).

EINSTEIN’S RESPONSE TO THE NEW DYNAMICS

447

Bohr’s drawing of Einstein’s clock-in-the-box experiment [B6]. (Reproduced with the
kind permission of Professor A. Schilpp.)

and Bohr trolling near him, very excited The next morning came Bohr’s

triumph’ [Rl].

450

THE QUANTUM THEORY

made a stunning advance, increasing their number of seats in the Reichstag from
twelve to one hundred and seven.

Einstein’s decision to move to Princeton was the result of three meetings with
Abraham Flexner [FI]. The first of these was unplanned. Early in 1932, Flexner
had come to Pasadena to discuss with faculty members at CalTech his project for
a new center of research, The Institute for Advanced Study. On that occasion, he
was introduced to Einstein. The two men discussed the Institute plan in general
terms. When they met again in Oxford, in the spring of 1932, Flexner asked if
Einstein himself might be interested in joining the Institute. At their third meeting,
in Caputh in June 1932, Einstein said he was enthusiastic about coming, provided
he could bring his assistant, Walther Mayer; for himself he requested an annual
salary of $3000. ‘He asked . . . “could I live on less”?’ [F2]. Formal negotiations
began at once [El 9]. The appointment was approved in October 1932 [II ]. His
salary was set at $15000 per year. The remarkable story of the negotiations con-
cerning Walther Mayer is found in Chapter 29.

Einstein originally intended to spend five months of the year in Princeton and
the rest of the time in Berlin [K2|. It never worked out that way. New elections
in July 1932 gave the Nazis 230 Reichstag seats. It was the following December
that Einstein told his wife that she would never see Caputh again (section 16d).
On December 10, 1932, the Einsteins, accompanied by thirty pieces of luggage,
left Bremerhaven on board the steamer Oakland, once again bound for California.
As it turned out, it was their permanent departure from Germany.

On January 30, 1933, Hitler came to power. Three days later, Einstein still
wrote to the secretariat of the Prussian Academy concerning his salary arrange-
ments [K3]. The situation deteriorated rapidly, however, and in a letter dated
March 28, 1933, Einstein sent his resignation to the Akademie in Berlin [K4].*
A week earlier. The New York Times had reported that ‘one of the most perfect
raids of recent German history was carried out’ [Nlj. The SA had raided the
Einsteins’ Caputh home to search for hidden weapons. According to the Times,
all they found was a breadknife.

March 28 was also the day on which the Einsteins arrived in Antwerp, return-
ing from California. They had to return to Europe because Einstein had obliga-
tions and because arrangements had to be made for the move to Princeton, which
now, of course, was to be their only home. Family and friends helped them find
a temporary European abode, the villa Savoyard in Le Coq sur Mer on the Bel-
gian coast. There they were joined by Use and Margot, who had meanwhile gone
to Paris. Helen Dukas came from Zurich, Walther Mayer from Vienna. Their
establishment was completed by two guards (assigned by the Belgian government)
who were to watch over their safety. Rumors were rife of planned attempts on
Einstein’s life.

Practical arrangements were made. Einstein’s son-in-law Rudolf Kayser saw
•On April 21 he also resigned from the Bavarian Academy.

EINSTEIN S RESPONSE TO THE NEW DYNAMICS

451

to it that Einstein s pap)ers in Berlin were saved and sent to the Quai d’Orsay by
French diplomatic pouch. Furniture from the home on the Haberlandstrasse was
prepared for shipment (and arrived safely in Princeton some time later). Einstein
traveled. He lectured several times in Brussels; he went to Zurich, where he saw
his son Eduard for the last time; he went to Oxford, where on June 10 he gave
the Spencer lecture, which I have often quoted [El 7],

Two days later, he lectured again in Oxford and on June 20 was in Glasgow
to give the first Gibson lecture, dealing with the origins of general relativity
[E20].* During a brief second visit to England, in July, he met with Churchill
and other prominent personalities. Meanwhile, offers for academic positions
reached him from several sides. Weizmann asked him to come to Jerusalem. Ein-
stein refused outright because he was highly critical of the Hebrew University’s
administration. He was approached by Leiden and Oxford. Offers for chairs came
from Madrid and Paris.

In the midst of these happenings, Einstein and Mayer managed to do a little
physics and complete two papers on semivectors, which they sent from Le Coq to
Holland for publication in the Royal Dutch Academy proceedings [E21, E221.
These were sequels to a joint paper they had finished a few days before Einstein
had set off for Pasadena [E23j. This work was stimulated by Ehrenfest’s insis-
tence on a better understanding of the relation between single-valued and double-
valued representations of the Lorentz group (E23]. In response, this is what they
did. Associate a 2 X 2 matrix A' to a special relativistic 4-vector

X =

^0 + ^3

Xi + ix->

- 1 X 2
Xo ^3

(25.1)

so that deiX equals the vector’s (invariant length)". Transform X by

X' = AXB

(25.2)

where A and B are complex 2X2 matrices. This transformation is length-pre-
serving if del/4 deti5 = 1. Scale in such a way that deiA = 1; then det^ = det5
= 1. With these constraints, Eq. 25.2 represents the general complex Lorentz
group excluding reflections; reality preservation demands that B = A\ Under the
transformation

X' = AX (25.3)

each of the two columns of X transforms into itself. These columns, called semi-
vectors by Einstein and Mayer, are double-valued representations of the proper
Lorentz group; up to linear combinations they are spinors.** Not all of this was
new [K5], but it was nice work, done independently. They went on to relate semi-

*A report in 77ie New York Times fN2) that Einstein was present at a Zionist Congress in Prague
in August is incorrect.

**Thc detailed connection between semivectors and spinors was discussed by Bargmann (B8].

452

THE QUANTUM THEORY

vectors to the Dirac equation and to generalize the formalism to general relativity.
Their studies of semivector pairs led them to believe that for ‘the first time ... an
explanation has been given for the existence of two electric elementary particles
of different mass, with charges that are (equal and] opposite’ [E21], a conclusion
that did not survive.*

On September 9 Einstein left the Continent for good. Le Coq was too close to
the German border for his safety. Again he went to England, where he spent a
few quiet weeks in the country. On October 3 he addressed a mass meeting in
London, chaired by Rutherford, which was designed to draw attention to the need
for aid to scholars in exile (N3]. Then it was time to go. Use and Margot returned
to Paris. Elsa, Helen Dukas, and Walther Mayer** boarded the Westmoreland
in Antwerp. On October 7 Einstein joined them in Southampton. Carrying visi-
tors’ visas, the four of them set out for a new life.

On October 17 they arrived in New York and were met at quarantine by Edgar
Bamberger and Herbert Maass, trustees of the Institute, who handed Einstein a
letter from Flexner, the Institute’s first director. The letter read in part: ‘There is
no doubt whatsoever that there are organized bands of irresponsible Nazis in this
country. I have conferred with the local authorities . . . and the national govern-
ment in Washington, and they have all given me the advice . . . that your safety
in America depends upon silence and refraining from attendance at public func-
tions You and your wife will be thoroughly welcome at Princeton, but in the

long run your safety will depend on your discretion’ [F3]. The party was taken
by special tug from quarantine to the Battery. From there, they were driven
directly to Princeton, where rooms at the Peacock Inn were waiting for them. A
few days later, the Einsteins and Helen Dukas moved to a rented house at 2
Library Place. There they stayed until 1935, when Einstein bought the house at
112 Mercer Street from Mary Marden, paying for it in cash. In the autumn of
that year, they moved in. It was to be Einstein’s last home. In 1939 Mussolini’s
racial laws forced Einstein’s sister, Maja Winteler, to leave the small estate outside
Florence which Einstein had bought for her and her husband, Paul. Maja came
to live with her brother in Princeton. Paul moved in with the Michaele Bessos in
Geneva.

Death struck in the early years. Use died in Paris after a painful illness. There-
after Margot joined her family in Princeton. In May 1935 Einstein and his wife
as well as Margot and her husbandf sailed for Bermuda, in order to obtain immi-
grant visas upon reentry. This was Einstein’s last trip outside the United States.
Not long thereafter, Elsa became gravely ill. She died on December 20, 1936, of
heart disease.

*These papers are rather bizarre since the authors were aware of the recent discovery of the positron
|E21|.

**C)ne biographer’s story IC2] that Mayer had joined Einstein in England is incorrect,
f Margot was briefly married to Dimitri Marianoflf.

Einstein’s response to the new dynamics

453

In 1938 Einstein’s son Hans Albert came to the United States. In 1926 he had
obtained the diploma as civil engineer at the ETH. In 1928 he married Frida
Knecht in Dortmund, where he worked for some years as a steel designer. In 1930
their son Bernhard Caesar was born, Einstein’s first grandchild. In 1936, Hans
Albert obtained his PhD degree at the ETH. From 1947 to 1971 he was professor
of hydraulic engineering at the University of California in Berkeley. About his
father’s influence on him, he once remarked, ‘Probably the only project he ever
gave up on was me. He tried to give me advice, but he soon discovered that I was
too stubborn and that he was just wasting his time’ [N3a).

Shortly after arriving in the United States, Einstein gave the Queen of Belgium
his early impressions of Princeton: ‘A quaint ceremonious village of puny demi-
gods on stilts’ [E24]. A year and a half later he wrote to her again: ‘I have locked
myself into quite hopeless scientific problems— the more so since, as an elderly
man, I have remained estranged from the society here’ IE25]. After he came to the
United States, his charisma did not wane. In January 1934 he and Elsa had stayed
with the Roosevelts at the White House and had spent a night in the Franklin
Room. There were the same odd demands on his energies and time, as, for exam-
ple, when he was asked to write a letter for a time capsule to be placed at the site
of the New York World’s Fair and to be opened in the year 6369 (he did [N4]).
But Princeton, small, genteel, was not like the Berlin of the Weimar days, large,
vibrant, and perverse. Even a man with a strong inner life like Einstein had to
adjust himself to a new environment. He did, and very well. The more peaceful
new life began to grow on him. There was music in the home. He found old
friends and made new ones. He could be seen on Carnegie Lake in the small
sailboat he had bought, which had been christened Tinnef hy Helen Dukas (Yid-
dish for ‘cheaply made’). The name stuck. He never owned a car nor did he ever
learn to drive. There were occasional trips to New York and to other cities. There
were vacations, on the shores of Long Island or in the Adirondacks. In 1936 Ein-
stein took out his citizenship papers. On October 1, 1940, in Trenton, he, Margot,
and Helen Dukas were sworn in as United States citizens by that wonderful judge
Phillip Forman. (I cherish his memory; he inducted me, too.) On the following
November 5, the three of them waited their turn to vote in the Roosevelt-Willkie
election.

Einstein went on with his physics. What he did in those years was described in
other chapters and will be returned to in the next section. The Institute did not
yet have its own buildings when he arrived. He and other faculty members were
given space in Princeton University’s ‘old’ Fine Hall (now the Gest Institute of
Oriental Studies). After 1939 they moved to the Institute’s newly built Fuld Hall.
His only official duty was to attend faculty meetings. This he did until his retire-
ment at age 65, in 1944, and continued to do until early 1950. A number of people
came to work with him. These we shall meet in Chapter 29. He was readily
accessible to all who wanted to discuss science with him.

454

THE QUANTUM THEORY

During the years 1933-45 Einstein spoke out less on political issues than he
had done before or would do again after the war.* The reasons for this relative
quietude are obvious. In the early years he was not yet a U.S. citizen. When the
war came there was only one issue: to win it. From 1933 until after the war he
desisted from advocating world disarmament and conscientious objection. ‘Orga-
nized power can be opposed only by organized power. Much as I regret this, there
is no other way’ (Nb). During the war years he acted as occasional consultant to
the Navy Bureau of Ordnance.

Much has been written about Einstein’s letters to President Roosevelt on the
importance of the development of atomic weapons [E26]. Opinions on the influ-
ence of these letters are divided.** It is my own impression that this influence was
marginal. It is true that Roosevelt appointed a three-man Advisory Committee on
Uranium on the same day he replied to Einstein’s first letter. However, he only
decided to go ahead with full scale atomic weapons development in October 1941.
At that time he was mainly influenced, I believe, by the British efforts. It was not
until then that Secretary of War Stimson heard about the project for the first time
[S2). In his later years, Einstein himself said more than once that he regretted
having signed these letters. ‘Had I known that the Germans would not succeed in
producing an atomic bomb, I would not have lifted a finger’ [VI).

The story of Einstein in Princeton will be continued and concluded in Chapter
27. Before returning to objective reality, I mention one anecdote of Einstein’s early
years in the United States, a story I owe to Helen Dukas.

During a speech by a high official at a major reception for Einstein, the honored
guest took out his pen and started scribbling equations on the back of his program,
oblivious to everything. The speech ended with a great flourish. Everybody stO(xl
up, clapping hands and turning to Einstein. Helen whispered to him that he had
to get up, which he did. Unaware of the fact that the ovation was for him, he
clapped his hands, too, until Helen hurriedly told him that he was the one for
whom the audience was cheering.

25c. Einstein on Objective Reality

In his Como address, Bohr had remarked that quantum mechanics, like relativity
theory, demands refinements of our everyday perceptions of inanimate natural
phenomena. ‘We find ourselves here on the very path taken by Einstein of adapt-
ing our modes of perception borrowed from the sensations to the gradually deep-
ening knowledge of the laws of Nature’ (BS). Already then, in 1927, he empha-
sized that we have to treat with extreme care our use of language in recording the
results of observations that involve quantum effects. ‘The hindrances met with on
this path originate above all in the fact that, so to say, every word in the language

•See 1N5) for some of Einstein’s opinions during the period 1933-45.

••For comments by General Groves, 1. 1. Rabi, and E. P. Wigner sec [LI ).

EINSTEIN’S RESPONSE TO THE NEW DYNAMICS

455

refers to our ordinary perception.’ Bohr’s deep concern with the role of language
in the appropriate interpretation of quantum mechanics never ceased. In 1948 he
put it as follows:

Phrases often found in the physical literature, as ‘disturbance of phenomena by
observation or creation of physical attributes of objects by measurements,’ rep-
resent a use of words like ‘phenomena’ and ‘observation’ as well as ‘attribute’
and measurement which is hardly compatible with common usage and prac-
tical definition and, therefore, is apt to cause confusion. As a more appropriate
way of expression, one may strongly advocate limitation of the use of the word
phenomenon to refer exclusively to observations obtained under specified cir-
cumstances, including an account of the whole experiment. [B9]

This usage of phenomenon, if not generally accepted, is the one to which nearly
all physicists now subscribe.

In contrast to the view that the concept of phenomenon irrevocably includes the
specifics of the experimental conditions of observation, Einstein held that one
should seek for a deeper-lying theoretical framework which permits the descrip-
tion of phenomena independently of these conditions. That is what he meant by
the term objective reality. After 1933 it was his almost solitary position that quan-
tum mechanics is logically consistent but that it is an incomplete manifestation of
an underlying theory in which an objectively real description is possible.

In an article written in 1935 with Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen [E27),
Einstein gave reasons for his position by discussing an example, simple as always.
This paper ‘created a stir among physicists and has played a large role in philo-
sophical discussion’ [BIO].’^ It contains the following definition. ‘If without in any
way disturbing a system we can predict with certainty (i.e., with a probability
equal to unity) the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of
physical reality corresponding to this physical quantity.’ The authors then con-
sider the following problem. Two particles with respective momentum and posi-
tion variables (p^q^) and (p 2 > 92 ) ‘^re in a state with definite total momentum
P=/?i + p 2 and definite relative distance q^q^ — qi. This, of course, is possible
since P and q commute. The particles are allowed to interact. Observations are
made on particle 1 long after the interaction has taken place. Measure /?, and one
knows p 2 without having disturbed particle 2. Therefore (in their language), p 2
is an element of reality. Next, measure q^ and one knows ^2 again without having
disturbed particle 2. Therefore q 2 is also an element of reality, so that both p 2 and
qi are elements of reality. But quantum mechanics tells us that p 2 and <72 cannot
simultaneously be elements of reality because of the noncommutativity of the

*This stir reached the press. On May 4, 193S, The New York Times earned an article under the
heading ‘Einstein attacks quantum theory,’ which also includes an interview with another physicist
hs May 7 issue contains a statement by Einstein in which he deprecated this release, which did not
have his authorization.

456

THE QUANTUM THEORY

momentum and position operators of a given particle. Therefore quantum
mechanics is incomplete.

The authors stress that they ‘would not arrive at our conclusion if one insisted
that two . . . physical quantities can be regarded as simultaneous elements of real-
ity only when they can be simultaneously measured or predicted’ (their italics).
Then follows a remark that is the key to Einstein’s philosophy and which I have
italicized in part:

This [simultaneous predictability) makes the reality of and qi depend upon
the process of measurement carried out on the first system which does not dis-
turb the second system in any way. No reasonable definition of reality could be
expected to permit this.

The only part of this article that will ultimately survive, I believe, is this last
phrase, which so poignantly summarizes Einstein’s views on quantum mechanics
in his later years. The content of this paper has been referred to on occasion as
the Einstein -Podolsky -Rosen paradox. It should be stressed that this paper con-
tains neither a paradox nor any flaw of logic. It simply concludes that objective
reality is incompatible with the assumption that quantum mechanics is complete.
This conclusion has not affected subsequent developments in physics, and it is
doubtful that it ever will.

‘It is only the mutual exclusion of any two experimental procedures, permitting
the unambiguous definition of complementary physical quantities which provides
room for new physical laws,’ Bohr wrote in his rebuttal ( B1 1 ). He did not believe
that the Einstein- Podolsky- Rosen paper called for any change in the interpre-
tation of quantum mechanics. Most physicists (myself included) agree with this
opinion.

This concludes an account of Einstein’s position. He returned to his criterion
for objective reality in a number of later papers [E28, E29, E30, E31], in which
he repeated the EPR argument on several occasions. These papers add nothing
substantially new. In one of them [E30], he discussed the question of whether the
quantum-mechanical notion of phenomenon should also apply to bodies of every-
day size. The answer is, of course, in the affirmative.

Bohr was, of course, not the only one to express opposition to objective reality;
nor was Einstein the only one critical of the complementarity interpretation.* I
have chosen to confine myself to the exchanges between Einstein and Bohr because
I believe that Einstein’s views come out most clearly in juxtaposing them with
Bohr’s. Moreover, I am well acquainted with their thoughts on these issues
because of discussions with each of them. Bohr was in Princeton when he put the

*In 1950 Einstein mentioned Schroedinger and von Laue as the only ones who shared his views
[E32]. There were many others who at that time (and later) had doubts about the complementarity
interpretation, but their views and Einstein’s did not necessarily coincide or overlap (see [E33]).
Note also that the term hidden variable docs not occur in any of Einstein’s papers or letters, as far
as I know.

Einstein’s response to the new dynamics

457

finishing touches to his 1949 article [B6], and we discussed these matters often at
that time. (It was during one of these discussions that Einstein sneaked in to steal
some tobacco [PI].) However, it needs to be stressed that other theoretical physi-
cists and mathematicians have made impiortant contributions to this area of prob-
lems. Experimentalists have actively participated, as well. A number of experi-
mental tests of quantum mechanics in general and also of the predictions of sp>ecific
alternative schemes have been made.* This has not led to any surprises.

It has been stressed many times that, in order to follow Einstein’s thinking, it
is necessary to see him both as a critic and as a visionary. In this chapter the critic
has been portrayed. In the next we meet the visionary.

References

Bl. M. Born, Z. Phys. 37, 863 (1926).

B2. , Z. Phys. 38, 803 (1926).

B3. , letter to A. Einstein, November 30, 1926.

B4. The Bom- Einstein Letters, p. 130. Walker, New York, 1971.

B5. N. Bohr, Nature 121, 580 (1928).

B5a. L. de Broglie, New Perspectives in Physics, p. 150. Basic, New York, 1962.

B6. N. Bohr in Albert Einstein: Philosopher- Scientist (P. Schilpp, Ed.), p. 199.
Tudor, New York, 1949.

B7. W. Bothe and H. Geiger, Naturw. 13, 440 (1925) Z. Phys. 32, 639 (1925).

B8. V. Bargmann, Helv. Phys. Acta 7, 57, (1933).

B9. N. Bohr, Dialectica 2, 312 (1948).

BIO. ,[B6], p. 232.

Bll. , Phys. Rev. 48, 696 (1935).

Cl. H. B. G. Casimir, letter to A. Pais, December 31, 1977.

C2. R. W. Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times, p. 603. Avon Books, New York, 1971.
Dl. P.A.M. Dirac, Proc. Roy. Soc. A114, 243 (1927).

El. A. Einstein, letter to C. Lanczos, March 21, 1942.

E2. W. Elsasscr, Naturw. 13, 711 (1925).

E3. A. Einstein, letter to R. A. Millikan, September 1, 1925.

E4. , letter to P. Ehrenfest, August 23, 1926.

E5. , letter to P. Ehrenfest, August 28, 1926.

E6. , in James Clark Maxwell, p 66. Macmillan, New York, 1931.

E7. , letter to M. Besso, December 25, 1925; EB, p. 215.

E8. , letter to H. Born, March 7, 1926. Reprinted in The Bom- Einstein Letters

(M. Born, Ed.), p. 91. Walker, New York, 1971.

E9. , letter to E. Schroedinger, April 26, 1926. Reprinted in Letters on Wave

Mechanics (M. Klein, Ed ). Philosophical Library, New York, 1967.

ElO. , letter to M. Besso, May 1, 1926; EB, p. 224.

^Typically, these tests deal with variants of the EPR arrangement, such as long-range correlations
between spins or polarizations. I must admit to being insufficiently familiar with the extensive the-
oretical and experimental literature of these topics. My main guides have been a book by Jammer
[Jll and a review article by Pipkin (P2]. Both contain extensive references to other literature.

458

THE QUANTUM THEORY

Ell. , letter to M. Born, December 4, 1926; The Born- Einstein Letters, p. 90.

El 2. , Z. Angew, Chemie 40, 546 (1927).

El 3. ,in Proceedings of the Fifth Solvay Conference, p. 253. Gauthier-Villars, Paris,

1928.

El 4. , letter to H. A. Lorentz, November 21, 1927.

El 5. , R. Tolman, and B. Podolsky, Phys. Rev. 37, 780 (1931).

El 6. , Z. Angew. Chemie 45, 23 (1932).

El 7. ,On the Method of Theoretical Physics. Oxford University Press, New York,

1933. Reprinted in Phil. Set. 1, 162 (1934).

El 8. , personal travel diary, December 6, 1931.

E19. , letter to A. Flexner, June 8, 1932.

E20. of the General Theory of Relativity. Glasgow University, Publ. No

30, 1933.

E21. , and W. Mayer, Proc. K. Ak. Amsterdam 36, 497 (1933).

E22. , and , Proc. K. Ak. Amsterdam 36, 615 (1933).

E23. , and , PAW, 1932, p. 522.

E24. , letter to Queen Elizabeth of Belgium, November 20, 1933.

E25. , letter to Queen Elizabeth of Belgium, February 16, 1935.

E26. ,letters to F. D. Roosevelt, August 2, 1939; March 7, 1940. Reprinted in |N31,

pp. 294, 299.

E27. , B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Phys. Rev. 47, 777 (1935).

E28. ,Dialecttca2,mimS).

E29. , in Albert Einstein: philosopher- scientist (P. Schilpp, Ed.). Tudor, New

York, 1949.

E30. , in Scientific Papers Presented to Max Born, Hafner, New York, 1951. p. 33

E31. in Louis de Broglie, Physicien et Penseur, p. 5. Michel, Paris, 1953.

E32. , letter to E. Schroedinger, December 22, 1950.

E33. , letter to M. Born, May 12, 1952.

FI. A. Flexner, I Remember. Simon and Schuster, New York, 1940.

F2. , The New York Times, April 19, 1955.

F3. , letter to A. Einstein, October 13, 1933.

Gl. S. Goudsmit, letter to A. Pais, January 16, 1978.

HI. W. Heisenberg, postcard to W. Pauli, June 29, 1925. Reprinted in W. Pauli Sci-
entific Correspondence, Vol. 1, p. 229. Springer, New York, 1979.

H2. , Z. Phys. 33, 879 (1926).

H3. , Der Teil und das Game, pp. 90-100. Piper, Munich, 1969.

H4. , letter to A. Einstein, November 30, 1925.

H5. ,in Niels Bohr and the Development of Physics (W. Pauli, Ed.), p. 12.

McGraw-Hill, New York, 1955.

H6. , Z. Phys. 43, 172 (1927).

H7. , letter to A. Einstein, June 10, 1927.

H8. , letter to A. Einstein, May 19, 1927.

II. The Institute for Advanced Study, excerpt from minutes, October 10, 1932.

Jl. M. Jammer, The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics. Wiley, New York, 1974.
Kl. C. Kirsten and H. J, Trcdcr, Einstein in Berlin, Vol. 2. p. 268. Akademic, Berlin,
1979.

Einstein’s response to the new dynamics

459

K2. and , [Kl], Vol. 1, p. 241.

K3. and . [Kl), Vol. 1, p. 242.

K4. and , (Kl], Vol. 1, p. 246.

K5. F. Klein, Vorlesungen iiber die Entwicklung der Mathematik im 19 Jahrhun-
dert, Vol. 2, Chap. 2, Sec. 2. Springer, New York, 1979.

LI. A. B. Lerner, Einstein and Newton, pp 212-15. Lerner, Minneapolis, 1973.

Ml. J. Mehra, Biogr. Mem. Fell. Roy. Soc. 21, 117 (1975).

Nl. New York Times, March 20, 1933.

N2. New York Times, August 22, 1933.

N3. O. Nathan and M. Norden, Einstein on Peace, p 236. Schocken, New York, 1968.
N3a. New York Times, July 27, 1973.

N4. New York Times, September 16, 1938.

N5. O. Nathan and M. Norden, [N3], Chaps. 8-10.

N6. and , [N3], p. 319.

PI. A. Pais in Niels Bohr, p. 215 North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1967.

P2. F. M. Pipkin, Adv. At. Mol Phys. 14, 281 (1978).

Rl, L. Rosenfeld in Proceedings of the Fourteenth Solvay Conference, p. 232. Inler-
science. New York, 1968.

51. W. T. Scott, Erwin Schroedtnger, University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst,
1967.

52. H. L Stimson, On active Service in Peace and War, Chap. 23. Harper New
York 1947.

VI. A. Vallentin, 7'he Drama of Albert Einstein, p 278. Doubleday, New York, 1954.
W1 E P. Wigner, Proceedings, Einstein Centennial Conference at Princeton, p. 461.
Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1980.

Einstein’s Vision

26a. Einstein, Newton, and Success

Einstein’s lasting conviction that quantum mechanics was not a theory of principle
did not impede him from recognizing that this theory was highly successful. As
early as 1927, he publicly expressed his judgment that wave mechanics is ‘in
amazing agreement with the facts of experience’ [El). In 1936 he wrote, ‘It seems
clear . . . that the Born statistical interpretation of the quantum theory is the only
possible one’ [E2], and in 1949 declared, ‘The statistical quantum theory [is] the
most successful theory of our period’ [E31. Then why was he never convinced by
it?

I believe Einstein indirectly answered this question in his 1933 Spencer lec-
ture— perhaps the clearest and most revealing expression of his way of thinking
in later life. The key is to be found in his remarks on Newton and classical
mechanics. In this lecture [E4], Einstein noted that ‘Newton felt by no means
comfortable about the concept of absolute space, ... of absolute rest . . . [and]
about the introduction of action at a distance.’ Then he went on to refer to the
success of Newton’s theory in these words: ‘The enormous practical success of his
theory may well have prevented him and the physicists of the eighteenth and nine-
teenth centuries from recognizing the fictitious character of the principles of his
system.’ It is important to note that by fictitious Einstein meant free inventions of
the human mind. Whereupon he compared Newton’s mechanics with his own
work on general relativity: ‘The fictitious character of the principles is made quite
obvious by the fact that it is possible to exhibit two essentially different bases
[Newtonian mechanics and general relativistic mechanics] each of which in its
consequences leads to a large measure of agreement with experience.’ (Remember
that these words were spoken long before it was realized how markedly the pre-
dictions of Newtonian mechanics differ from those of general relativity when
strong grativational fields come into play.)

In the Spencer leaurc, Einstein mentioned the success not only of classical
mechanics but also of the statistical interpretation of quantum theory. ‘This con-
ception is logically unexceptionable and has led to important successes.’ But, he
added, ‘I still believe in the possibility of giving a model of reality which shall
represent events themselves and not merely the probability of their occurence.’

460

EINSTEIN’S VISION

461

From this lecture as well as from discussions with him on the foundations of
quantum physics, I have gained the following impression. Einstein tended to com-
pare the successes of classical mechanics with those of quantum mechanics. In his
view both were on a par, being successful but incomplete. For more than a decade,
Einstein had pondered the single question of how to extend the invariance under
uniform translations to general motions. His resulting theory, general relativity,
had led to only small deviations from Newton’s theory. (Instances where these
deviations are large were discussed only much later.) He was likewise prepared
for the survival of the practical successes of quantum mechanics, with perhaps
only small modifications. He was also prepared to undertake his own search for
objective reality, fearless of how long it would take. It is quite plausible that the
very success of his highest achievement, general relativity, was an added spur to
Einstein’s apartness. Yet it should not be forgotten that this trait characterized his
entire oeuvre and style.

The crux of Einstein’s thinking on the quantum theory was not his negative
position in regard to what others had done, but rather his deep faith in his own
distinct approach to the quantum problems. His beliefs may be summarized as
follows:

(1 ) Quantum mechanics represents a major advance, and yet it is only a limiting
case of a theory which remains to be discovered:

There is no doubt that quantum mechanics has seized hold of a beautiful ele-
ment of truth and that it will be a touchstone for a future theoretical basis in
that it must be deducible as a limiting case from that basis, just as electrostatics
is deducible from the Maxwell equations of the electromagnetic field or as ther-
modynamics is deducible from statistical mechanics (£2]

(2) One should not try to find the new theory by beginning with quantum
mechanics and trying to refine or reinterpret it:

I do not believe that quantum mechanics will be the starting point in the search
for this basis, just as one cannot arrive at the foundations of mechanics from
thermodynamics or statistical mechanics. [£2]

(3) Instead — and this was Einstein’s main point — one should start all over
again, as it were, and endeavor to obtain the quantum theory as a by-product of
a general relativistic theory or a generalization thereof. Starting all over again had
never daunted him. That is the single most important link between the early and
the late Einstein. His reverence for Lorentz had not held him back from rejecting
the latter’s dynamic views on the contraction of rods and on the interpretation of
Fizeau’s experiment. His reverence for Newton had not prevented him from
rejecting absolute space. The relativity theories, his own greatest successes, his
theories of principle, had been arrived at by making fresh starts. He was going to
do that again for the quantum theory, and never mind the time it might take. In
1950 he wrote to Born, ‘I am convinced of [objective reality] although, up to now,
success is against it’ [E5].

462

THE QUANTUM THEORY

It was a solitary position. Einstein knew that. Nor was he oblivious to other’s
reactions. ‘I have become an obstinate heretic in the eyes of my colleagues,’ he
wrote to one friend [E6), and to another, ‘I am generally regarded as a sort of
petrified object, rendered blind and deaf by the years. I find this role not too dis-
tasteful, as it corresponds very well with my temperament’ [E7]. He knew, and
on occasion would even say, that his road was a lonely one [E8], yet he held fast.
‘Momentary success carries more power of conviction for most people than reflec-
tions on principle’ [E9].

Einstein was neither saintly nor humorless in defending his position on the
quantum theory. On occasion he could be acerbic. At one time, he said that Bohr
thought very clearly, wrote obscurely, and thought of himself as a prophet [SI].
Another time he referred to Bohr as a mystic [ElO]. On the other hand, in a letter
to Bohr, Einstein referred to his own position by quoting an old rhyme: ‘Uber die
Reden des Kandidaten Jobses/Allgemeines Schiitteln des Kopses’ [Ell).*There
were moments of loneliness, i feel sure that you do not understand how I came
by my lonely ways’ [El 2]. He may not have expressed all his feelings on these
matters. But that was his way. The essential of the being of a man of my type
lies precisely in what he thinks and how he thinks, not in what he does or suffers’
[E3].

Einstein’s apartness in regard to the foundations of quantum physics predates
the discovery of quantum mechanics. That is the second most important link
between the early and the later Einstein. I shall enlarge on this in Section 26c, but
first some final comments on the subject of Chapter 2: Einstein’s general attitude
toward the quantum and relativity theories.

26b. Relativity Theory and Quantum Theory

It is a very striking characteristic of Einstein’s early scientific writing that he left
relativity theory separate from quantum theory, even on occasions where it would
have been natural and straightforward to connect them. This separation is already
evident in his very first paper on special relativity, in which he noted, ‘It is remark-
able that the energy and frequency of a light complex vary with the state of motion
of the observer according to the same law’ [El 3], Here was an obvious opportu-
nity to refer to the relation E - hv oi his paper on light-quanta, finished only a
few months earlier. But Einstein did not do that. Also, in the vSeptember 1905
paper on relativity [El 4], he referred to radiation but not to light-quanta. In his
1909 address at Salzburg, Einstein discussed his ideas both on relativity theory
and on quantum theory but kept these two areas well separated [ El 5]. As we saw
in Section 21c, in his 1917 paper Einstein ascribed to light-quanta an energy E
= hv and a momentum p = hv/c. This paper concludes with the remark,
‘Energy and momentum are most intimately related; therefore, a theory can be

•Roughly: There was a general shaking of heads concerning the words of candidate Jobs.

EINSTEIN’S VISION

463

considered justified only if it has been shown that according to [the theory] the
momentum transferred by radiation to matter leads to motions as required by
thermodynamics [El 6]. Why is only thermodynamics mentioned; why not rela-
tivity also? Because, I believe, to him relativity was to such an extent the revealed
truth that in his view the phenomenological and provisional quantum theory was
not yet ripe enough, perhaps not yet worthy enough, to be brought into contact
with relativity arguments.

So it was in the days of the old quantum theory. So it remained after quantum
mechanics came along. In the previous section, I noted that Einstein considered
quantum mechanics to be highly successful. I should now be more precise and add
that this opinion of his applied exclusively to nonrelativistic quantum mechanics.

I know from experience how difficult it was to discuss quantum field theory with
him. He did not believe that nonrelativistic quantum mechanics provided a secure
enough basis for relativistic generalizations [E17, E18]. Relativistic quantum field
theory was repugnant to him [Blj. Walter Thirring has written to me of conver-
sations with Einstein in which ‘his objections became even stronger when it con-
cerned quantum field theory, and he did not believe in any of its consequences’
[Tlj. Valentin Bargmann has told me that at one time Einstein asked him for a
private survey of quantum field theory, beginning with second quantization. Barg-
mann did so for about a month. Thereafter Einstein’s interest waned.

The preceding remarks on quantum field theory refer principally to its special
relativistic version. In the time capsule of Section 2b, I inserted the comment that
to this day the synthesis of quantum theory and general relativity is beset with
conceptual difficulties. Was that what bothered Einstein? It was not, as is best
seen from the closing phrases of his tribute to Maxwell:

‘I incline to the belief that physicists will not be permanently satisfied with
... an indirect description of Reality, even tf the [quantum] theory can be fitted
successfully to the General Relativity postulates [my italics]. They would then
be brought back to the attempt to realize that programme which may suitably
be called Maxwell’s; the description of Physical Reality by fields which satisfy
without singularity a set of partial differential equations. [El 9]

That programme’ is uniquely Einstein’s. His main point was that one should not
start out by accepting the quantum postulates as primary rules and then proceed
to fit these rules to general relativity. Instead, he believed one should start with a
classical field theory, a unified field theory, and demand of that theory that the
quantum rules should emerge as constraints imposed by that theory itself.

In the next and final section on the quantum theory, I shall outline how Ein-
stein hoped to achieve this. The question of why he harbored such expectations
brings us to another edge of history. A definitive answer cannot be given. As a
personal opinion, it seems to me that making great discoveries can be accompanied
by trauma, and that the purity of Einstein’s relativity theories had a blinding effect
on him. He almost said so himself: ‘To the discoverer ... the constructions of his

464

THE QUANTUM THEORY

imagination appear so necessary and so natural that he is apt to treat them not as
the creations of his thoughts but as given realities’ [E4]. His insistence on objective
reality is a perfect example of such a mental process.

Finally, I should like to reiterate my own view that Einstein’s technical objec-
tions to quantum mechanics are unfounded, but that 1 do not know whether either
quantum mechanics or general relativity is complete, or whether their desired syn-
thesis can be consummated simply by welding together their respective sets of
postulates.

26c. Oberkansalitat

In 1923 Einstein published an article entitled ‘Does field theory offer possibilities
for the solution of the quantum problem?’ [E201. It begins with a reminder of the
successes achieved in electrodynamics and general relativity theory in regard to a
causal description: events are causally determined by differential equations com-
bined with initial conditions on a spacelike surface. However, Einstein continued,
this method cannot be applied to quantum problems without further ado. As he
put it, the discreteness of the Bohr orbits indicates that initial conditions cannot
be chosen freely. Then he asked, Can one nevertheless implement these quantum
constraints in a (causal) theory based on partial differential equations? His
answer: ‘Quite certainly: we must only “overdetermine” the field variables by
[appropriate] equations.’ Next he stated his program, based on three require-
ments: (1) general covariance, (2) the desired equations should at least be in accor-
dance with the gravitational and the Maxwell theory, and (3) the desired system
of equations which overdetermines the fields should have static, spherically sym-
metric solutions which describe the electron and proton. If this overdetermination
can be achieved, then ‘we may hope that these equations co-determine the mechan-
ical behavior of the singular points (electrons) in such a way that the initial con-
ditions of the field and the singular points are also subject to restrictive conditions.’
He went on to discuss a tentative example and concluded, ‘To me, the main point
of this communication is the idea of overdetermination.’

By 1923 Einstein had already been brooding about these ideas for a number of
years. In 1920 he had written to Bom, ‘I do not seem able to give tangible form
to my pet idea [meine Lieblingsidee], which is to understand the structure of the
quanta by redundancy in determination, using differential equations,’ [E21].This
is the earliest reference to his strategy that I am aware of. It would seem likely
that ideas of this kind began to stir in him soon after 1917, when he had not only
completed the general theory of relativity but had also discovered the lack of caus-
ality in spontaneous emission [El 6). The early response of others to these attempts
by Einstein was recorded by Bom: ‘In those days [early 1925], we all thought that
his objective . . . was attainable and also very important’ [B2]. Einstein himself
felt that he had no choice. ‘The road may be quite wrong, but it must be tried’
(E221.

Einstein’s vision

465

Overdetermination \vas and remained Einstein’s hope for an answer to the
quantum problem. In addressing Planck, six years later, he made his point quite
emphatically: the understanding of quantum phenomena does not demand a
weakening of classical causality, as is done in quantum mechanics. On the con-
trary, classical causality should be strengthened.

Natural phenomena seem to be determined to such an extent that not only the
temporal sequence but also the initial state is fixed to a large extent by [phys-
ical] law. It seemed to me that I should express this idea by searching for over-
determined systems of differential equations. . I strongly believe that we will
not end up with a Subkausalitat [subcausality] but that, in the indicated sense,
we will arrive at an Uberkausalilat [supercausaliiyj. [E 23 ].

At long last, I can now explain Einstein’s vision. He was looking for a unified
field theory, but to him that concept meant something different from what it meant
and means to everyone else. He demanded that the theory shall be strictly causal,
that it shall unify gravitation and electromagnetism, that the particles of physics
shall emerge as special solutions of the general field equations, and that the quan-
tum postulates shall be a consequence of the general field equations. Einstein had
all these criteria in mind when he wrote, in 1949, ‘Our problem is that of finding
the field equations of the total field’ [E3]. Einstein’s scientific evolution can there-
fore be schematized by the picture given in the preface:

Special relativity

General relativity

Statistical physics

Quantum theory

Unified ^
field theory

In Chapter 17 I discussed that portion of Einstein’s work on unified field theory
that dealt with the synthesis of gravitation and electromagnetism. Here I add a
few remarks on the quantum aspects.

Einstein’s correspondence shows that the unified field theory and the quantum
problems were very often simultaneously on his mind. Here are but a few exam-
ples. In 1925, while he was at work on a theory with a nonsymmetric metric, he
wrote to a friend, ‘Now the question is whether this field theory is compatible
with the existence of atoms and quanta.’ [E24j. He discussed the same generalized
theory in a letter written in 1942. ‘What I am doing now may seem a bit crazy
to you. One must note, however, that the wave-particle duality demands some-
thing unheard of,’ [E25]. In 1949 he wrote, ‘I am convinced that the . . . statistical
[quantum] theory ... is superficial and that one must be backed by the principle
of general relativity’ [E26|. And in 1954, ‘I must seem like an ostrich who forever
buries its head in the relativistic sand in order not to face the evil quanta [E27].

466

THE QUANTUM THEORY

Forever and in vain, Einstein kept looking for hints that would help him realize
his vision of a quantum theory derived from a unified field theory. This urge
explains his reference to the quantum theory at unexpected places. His first paper
with Grommer (see Section ISQ on the problem of motion ends, ‘It has been
shown for the first time that a field theory can contain a theory of the mechanical
properties of discontinuities. This may become of significance for . . . the quantum
theory’ [E28]. However, in a sequel he withdrew this last remark [E29]. In 1930
he gave a lecture on unified field theory, a report of which contains the statement,
‘He emphasized that he is in no way taking notice of the results of quantum cal-
culations because he believes that by dealing with microscopic phenomena these
will come out by themselves’ [E30]. A report in 1931 by Einstein on a five-dimen-
sional theory which should unify gravitation and electromagnetism ends, ‘This
theory does not yet contain the conclusions of the quantum theory’ [E31]. Two
months after the Einstein- Podolsky- Rosen article, Einstein and Rosen completed
another paper, this one dealing with singularity-free solutions of the gravitational-
electromagnetic field equations [E321. One phrase in this paper, ‘one does not see
a priori whether the theory contains the quantum phenomena’ illustrates once
again the scope of the program that was on Einstein’s mind. The program was to
remain an elusive vision. Gravitation and electromagnetism were not synthesized,
quantum physics was not integrated, satisfactory particle-like solutions were not
found.

I add a few scattered remarks.

After Einstein’s brief flirtation with the Dirac equation, (Section 25b), he was
led to the belief that the sought-for equations of the total field would generate
particles with nonzero spin in terms of particle-like solutions that are not spher-
ically symmetrical (V. Bargmann, private communication). Presumably, he hoped
that his idea of overdetermination would lead to discrete spin values.*

He also hoped that the future theory would contain solutions which would not
be absolutely localizable and which would correspond to particles carrying quan-
tized electric charge [E4].

In 1925 Einstein noted that if the combined gravitational -electromagnetic field
equations have particle-like solutions with charge e and mass m, then there should
also be solutions with (—e,m)\ [E331. The proof involves the application of time
reversal to the combined equations. (In a related context, the existence of ( ± e,m)
solutions was first noted by Pauli [PI].) This result led him to doubt temporarily
whether the unification of gravitation and electromagnetism was possible at all.
(Remember his demand that the unified field theory should generate the known
particles as special solutions.)

Simplicity was the guide in Einstein’s quest. ‘In my opinion, there is the correct
path and ... it is in our power to find it. Our experience up to date justifies us in

*I note in passing that in 1925 Einstein gave a helping hand to Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit in the
explanation of the origins of the spin-orbit coupling of electrons in atoms [U1 ].

EINSTEIN’S VISION

467

feeling sure that in nature is actualized the ideal of mathematical simplicity’ [E4].
As early as 1927, Heisenberg stressed, in a letter to Einstein, that the latter’s
concept of simplicity and the simplicity inherent in quantum mechanics cannot be
realized at the same time. If I have understood correctly your point of view, then
you would gladly sacrifice the simplicity [of quantum mechanics] to the principle
of (classical] causality. Perhaps we could comfort ourselves (with the idea that]
the dear Lord could go beyond (quantum mechanics] and maintain causality. I do
not really find it beautiful, however, to demand more than a physical description
of the connection between experiments’ [HI].

As Einstein s life drew to a close, doubts about his vision arose in his mind.
The theory of relativity and the quantum theory . . . seem little adapted to
fusion into one unified theory,’ he remarked in 1940 [E34]. He wrote to Born,
probably in 1949, ‘Our respective hobby-horses have irretrievably run off in dif-
ferent directions Even I cannot adhere to [mine] with absolute confidence’

[E35]. In the early 1950s, he once said to me that he was not sure whether dif-
ferential geometry was to be the framework for further progress, but if it was then
he believed he was on the right track.* To his dear friend Besso he wrote in 1954,
‘I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e.,
on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the
air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics’ [E37]. I doubt
whether any physicist can be found who would not agree that this judgment is
unreasonably harsh. In one of the last of the many introductions Einstein wrote
for books by others, he said:

My efforts to complete the general theory of relativity ... are in part due to the
conjecture that a sensible general relativistic [classical] field theory might per-
haps provide the key to a more complete quantum theory. This is a modest
hope, but certainly not a conviction. [E38J

But, as Helen Dukas told me, Einstein once said at the dinner table (she did not
recall the year) that he thought physicists would understand him a hundred years
later. Nor can I escape the impression that he was thinking about himself when
he wrote the following lines about Spinoza:

Although he lived three hundred years before our time, the spiritual situation
with which Spinoza had to cope peculiarly resembles our own. The reason for
this is that he was utterly convinced of the causal dependence of all phenomena,
at a lime when the success accompanying the efforts to achieve a knowledge of
the causal relationship of natural phenomena was still quite modest. [E39].

*V. Bargmann informs me that Einstein made similar remarks to him in the late 1930s. A related
comment is found in a letter to Infeld. i tend more and more to the opinion that one cannot come
further with a continuum theory* (E36].

468

THE QUANTUM THEORY

Einstein kept thinking about quantum theory until the very end. He wrote his
last autobiographical sketch in Princeton, in March 1955, about a month before
his death. Its final sentences deal with the quantum theory.

It appears dubious whether a [classical] field theory can account for the atom-
istic structure of matter and radiation as well as of quantum phenomena. Most
physicists will reply with a convinced ‘No,’ since they believe that the quantum
problem has been solved in principle by other means. However that may be,
Lessing’s comforting word stays with us: the aspiration to truth is more precious
than its assured possession. [E40j

References

Bl. M. Born, letter to A. Einstein, October 10, 1944.

B2. (Ed.), The Born-Emstein Letters, p. 88. Walker, New York, 1971.

El. A. Einstein, Smithsonian Institution Report for 1927, p. 201; Naturw. 15, 273
(1927).

E2. , y. Franklin Inst. 221, 313 (1936).

E3.- in Albert Einstein: Philosopher- Scientist (P. A. Schilpp, Ed.). Tudor, New

York, 1949.

E4. , On the Method of Theoretical Physics Oxford Univ/ersity Press, New York,

1933. Reprinted in Phil. Sci. 1, 162 (1934).

E5. , letter to M. Born, September 15, 1950.

E6. , letter to M. Besso, August 8, 1949; EB, p. 407.

E7. , letter to M. Born, April 12, 1949.

E8. , letter to M. Born, March 18, 1948.

E9. , letter to M. Besso, July 24, 1949; EB, p. 402.

ElO. , letter to E. Schroedinger, August 9, 1939.

Ell. , letter to N. Bohr, April 4, 1949.

E12. , letter to M. Born, March 18, 1948.

E13. ,AdP 17, m (1905).

E14. ,/l(^P18, 639 (1905).

E15. , Phys. Zeitschr. 10, 817 (1909).

E16. , Phys. Zeitschr. 18, 121 (1917)

El 7. , letter to M. Born, March 22, 1934.

El 8. , letter to A. Sommerfeld, December 14, 1946.

E19. in James Clark Maxwell, p. 66. Macmillan, New York, 1931.

E20. — , P/HT, 1923, p. 359.

E21. , letter to M. Born, March 3, 1920.

E22. , letter to M. Besso, January 5, 1924; EB, p. 197.

E23. , Forschungen und Fortschritte 5, 248 (1929).

E24. , letter to M. Besso, July 28, 1925; EB, p. 209.

E25. , letter to M. Besso, August 1942; EB, p. 366.

E26. , letter to M. Besso, August 16, 1949; EB, p. 409.

E27. — , letter to L. de Broglie, February 8, 1954.

E28. and J. Grommer PAW, 1927, p. 2.

Einstein’s vision

469

E29. 1927, p. 235.

E30. , Science 71, 608 (1930).

E 31 . , Science

E32. and N. Rosen, Phys. Rev. 48, 73 (1935).

E33. , Physica 5, 330 (1925).

E34. , Science 91, 487 (1940).

E35. , letter to M. Born, undated, probably written in 1949.

E36. , letter to L. Infeld, March 6, 1941.

E37. , letter to M. Besso, August 10, 1954, EB, p. 525.

E38. in Louts de Broglie, Physicien et Penseur. Albin Michel, Paris, 1953.

E39. , introduction to R. Kayser, Spinoza, Portrait of a Spiritual Hero, p. xi, Philo-

sophical Library, New York, 1946.

E40. in Helle Zeit, dunkle Zeit (C. Seelig, Ed.). Europa Verlag Zurich, 1956.

HI. W. Heisenberg, letter to A. Einstein, June 10, 1927.

PI. W. Pauli, Phys. Zeitschr. 20, 457 (1919).

SI. R. S. Shankland, Am. J Phys 31, 47 (1963).

Tl. W. Thirring, letter to A. Pais, November 29, 1977
Ul. G. E. Uhlenbeck, Physics Today 29 (6), 43 (1976).

VII

JOURNEY’S END

The Final Decade

Einstein’s mind continued to be intensely active and fully alert until the very end
of his life. During the last ten years, however, his age, the state of his health, his
never-ending urge to do physics, and the multitude of his extra-scientific involve-
ments called for economy in the use of his energies and time. He kept to simple
routines as much as possible. He would come down for breakfast at about nine
o’clock then read the morning papers. At about ten-thirty he would walk to The
Instituie for Advanced Study, stay there until one o’clock, then walk home. 1 know
of one occasion when a car hit a tree after its driver suddenly recognized the face
of the beautiful old man walking along the street, his black woollen knit cap firmly
planted on his long white hair. After lunch he would go to bed tor a few hours.
Then he would have a cup of tea, work some more or attend to his mail or receive
people for discussions of nonpersonal matters. He look his evening meal between
Tx-t^hirty and seven. Thereafter he would work again or listen to the radio (there
was no tLvision in his home) or occasionally receive a friend. He normally retired
between eleven and twelve. Every Sunday at noon he listened to a news analysis
broadcast by Howard K. Smith. Guests were never invited at that hour On Sum
day afternoons there would be walks or drives in some friend s car. Only seldom
would he go out to a play or a concert, very rarely to a movie. He '

sionally attend a physics seminar at Palmer Laboratory, causing the aw d hush 1
mentioned before. In those last years, he no longer played ^e but^-
vised daily on the piano. He also had stopped smoking his beloved P'P"*

At the beginning of his last decade Einstein, sixty-six years dd, h's hon^e

on Mercer Street with his sister Maja. his stepdaughter Margofi a d He en
Dukas, who took care of everything from mail to meals. Soon after the end o the
war, Maja began making preparations for rejoining er us an ’ ^ ’ suffered
was living with the Bessos in Geneva (El|. It was not to be. "

a stroke and remained bedridden thereafter. Her situatmn etenora ,
she could no longer speak, though her mind remain^ clear. E-J "' 8^1 after
dinner, Einstein would go to the rtxtm of his sister, who was so dear to him,
read to her. She died in the Mercer Street home in June IVbl.

Physics remained at the center of Einstein’s be ng tn the 8

which, as I described earlier, he concentrated exclusively on unified field theory

473

474

journey’s end

and on questions of principle regarding the quantum theory. His published work
during that period includes eight papers on unified field theory; a contribution to
Dialectica, written at the instigation of Pauli, in which he explained his views on
quantum mechanics [E2]; and his necrology, as he called it, the important essay
entitled ‘Autobiographisches’ [E3]. On rare occasions, he would give a seminar
about his work at the Institute. In order to avoid curiosity-seekers, esf)ecially the
press, announcements of such talks were made only by word of mouth. The sem-
inars themselves were lucid, inconclusive, and other-worldly. Those were the days
of striking advances in quantum electrodynamics and unexpected discoveries of
new particles, days in which the gap between Einstein’s physics and the physics
of younger generations was ever widening.

At no time did Einstein immerse himself more in problems of policy and politics
than during the years following the end of the Second World War. ‘The war is
won but peace is not,’ he told an audience in December 1945 [E4]. He regarded
the post-war world as dangerously unstable and believed that new modes of gov-
ernance were called for. ‘The first atomic bomb destroyed more than the city of
Hiroshima. It also exploded our inherited, outdated political ideas’ [ES). As early
as September 1945, he suggested that ‘the only salvation for civilization and the
human race lies in the creation of a world government, with security of nations
founded upon law’ [Eb). In his opinion, such a world government should be given
powers of decision which would be binding on the member states. He was skep-
tical of the United Nations because it lacked such powers. World government
remained a theme with variations to which he returned time and again in his
remaining years. He repeated it in 1950 in a message ‘on the moral obligation of
a scientist’: ‘Mankind can be saved only if a supranational system, based on law,
is created to eliminate the methods of brute force’ [E7]. That, he believed, is what
man should strive for, even if the environment were hostile to such ideals. ‘While
it is true that an inherently free and scrupulous person may be destroyed, such an
individual can never be enslaved or made to serve as a blind tool’ [E7]. In several
instances,* celebrated in their day, he advocated civil disobedience. ‘It is my belief
that the problem of bringing peace to the world on a supranational basis will be
solved only by employing Gandhi’s method on a large scale’ [E8]. ‘What ought
the minority of intellectuals to do against [the] evil [of suppressing freedom of
teaching]? Frankly, I can see only the revolutionary way of non-cooperation in
the sense of Gandhi’s’ [E9]. These statemenu, dating from the ugly McCarthy
period, were rather uncommon for that time.

Einstein further believed in the necessity ‘to advance the use of atomic energy

*In a letter concerning a conscientious objector |N1] and in another one to William Frauenglass, a
high-school teacher who had been called to appear before the House Committee on Un-American
Activities [N2].

THE FINAL DECADE

475

in ways beneficial to mankind [and] to diffuse knowledge and information about
atomic energy ... in order that an informed citizenry may intelligently determine
and shape its action to serve its own and mankind’s best interest,’ as it is put in
the charter of the Emergency Committee of Atomic Scientists, a group of which
he was the chairman during its brief existence.* In 1954 Einstein sided with the
overwhelming majority of atomic scientists who publicly condemned the United
States government’s actions in the security case against Oppenheimer.

Einstein’s political views in the post-war years centered, I believe, on the themes
Just described. The reader interested in a more complete picture of his actions and
beliefs is referred once again to the book Einstein on Peace [Nl], in which the
documentation of this period, covering hundreds of pages, illustrates how much
effort Einstein devoted in his last years to issues dealing with the world’s future.
Some of his suggestions were perhaps unrealistic, other perhaps premature. Cer-
tain it is, though, that they originated from a clear mind and strong moral
convictions.

Two further issues, bearing on Einstein’s political views but going much
deeper, must be mentioned. He never forgave the Germans. ‘After the Germans
massacred my Jewish brothers in Europe, I will have nothing further to do with
Germans. ... It is otherwise with those few who remained firm within the range
of the possible’ [ElOj. To him those few included Otto Hahn, Max von Laue,
Max Planck, and Arnold Sommerfeld.

Einstein was devoted to the cause of Israel, even though on occasion he was
publicly critical of its government. He spoke of Israel as ‘us’ and of the Jews as
‘my people.’ It appears to me that Einstein’s Jewish identity emerged ever more
strongly as he grew older. He may never have found a place that truly was home
to him. But he did find the tribe to which he belonged.

During the last years of his life, Einstein was not well.

For a number of years, he had had attacks of pain in the upper abdomen. These
lasted usually two days, were accompanied by vomiting, and recurred every few
months. In the fall of 1948, the surgeon Rudolf Nissen,** who had been called in
for consultation, diagnosed an abdominal growth the size of a grapefruit. He sug-
gested an experimental laparotomy, to which Einstein consented. On December
12 he entered the Jewish Hospital in Brooklyn. Dr Nissen performed the oper-
ation and discovered that the growth was an aneurysm in the abdominal aorta.
The aneurysm was intact, its lining was firm. Corrective measures were counter-
indicated. Einstein stayed in the hospital until the incision had sufficiently healed.

*Thc committee was incorporated in August 1946. Its other members were R Bachcr, H. Bethe, E.
Condon, T. Hogness, L. Szilard, H. Urey, and V. Weisskopf. This group became inactive in Jan-
uary 1949 .

**Here I use an informal account by Dr Nissen 1N31.

476

journey’s end

The nurse’s notes indicate that he invariably responded to inquiries about his
health by saying that he felt well. He left the hospital on January 13, 1949.

About a year and a half later, it was found that the aneurysm was growing.
From then on, ‘we around him knew ... of the sword of Damocles hanging over
us. He knew it, too, and waited for it, calmly and smilingly’ [D2].

On March 18, 1950, Einstein put his signature to his last will and testament.
He appointed his friend, the economist Otto Nathan as executor. Nathan and
Helen Dukas were named trustees of all his letters, manuscripts, and copyrights
with the understanding that all his papers would eventually be turned over to the
Hebrew University. Other dispositions included the bequests of his books to Helen
Dukas and of his violin to his grandson Bernhard Caesar.

Among the other legatees were his sons, Hans Albert, then a professor of engi-
neering at Berkeley, and Eduard, then confined to the psychiatric hospital Burg-
hblzli in Zurich. Their mother, Mileva, had died in Zurich on August 4, 1948.
My picture of Mileva has remained rather vague. Among the many difficulties
which beset her life, the poor mental health of Eduard must have been a partic-
ularly heavy burden. She saw ‘Tede’ regularly until the end of her life. Eduard
died in Burghblzli in 1965, Hans Albert in Berkeley in 1973.

Among the many events in later years, I single out one

Chaim Weizmann, the first president of Israel, died on November 9, 1952.
Thereupon the Israeli government decided to ofTer the presidency to Einstein, who
first heard this news one afternoon from The New York Times, What happened
next has been described by a friend who was with Einstein that evening. ‘About
nine o’clock a telegram was delivered . . . from the Israeli ambassador in Wash-
ington, Mr Abba Eban. The highly elaborate terms of the telegram . . . made it
quite plain that the earlier report must be true, and the little quiet household was
much ruffled. “This is very awkward, very awkward,” the old gentleman was
explaining while walking up and down in a slate of agitation which was very
unusual with him. He was not thinking of himself but of how to spare the
Ambassador and the Israeli government embarrassment from his inevitable
refusal. ... He decided not to reply by telegram but to call Washington at once.
[He got] through to the Ambassador, to whom he spoke briefly and almost humbly
made plain his position’ [Ml].

The end came in 1955.

In March of that year, Einstein had occasion to remember three old friends.
He wrote to Kurt Blumenfeld, ‘I thank you belatedly for having made me con-
scious of my Jewish soul’ [Ell]. He wrote his last autobiographical sketch [El 2],
a contribution to a special issue of the Schweizerische Hochschulzeitung published
on the occasion of the centenary of the ETH. In this note, he mentioned ‘the need
to express at least once in my life my gratitude to Marcel Grossmann,’ the friend
whose notebooks he had used as a student, who had helped him to get a job at the
patent office, to whom he had dedicated his doctoral thesis, and with whom he
had written his first paper on the tensor theory of general relativity. In the same

the final decade

477

month Michele Besso died, another trusted friend from his student days, later his
colleague at the patent office, and his sounding board in the days of special rela-
tivity. In a letter to the Besso family, Einstein wrote, ‘Now he has gone a little
ahead of me in departing from this curious world’ [El 3].

On April 1 1 he lent for the last time his name to a pacifist manifesto — this one
drawn up by Bertrand Russell — in which all nations are urged to renounce
nuclear weapons [N4].

On the morning of Wednesday, April 13, the Israeli consul called on Einstein
at his home in order to discuss the draft of a statement Einstein intended to make
on television and radio on the occasion of the forthcoming anniversary of Israel’s
independence. The incomplete draft [N5] ends as follows. ‘No statesman in a
position of responsibility has dared to take the only promising course [toward a
stable peace] of supranational security, since this would surely mean his political
death. For the political passions, aroused everywhere, demand their victims.’
These may well be the last phrases Einstein committed to paper.

That afternoon Einstein collapsed at home. The aneurysm had ruptured. Guy
K. Dean, his personal physician, was called immediately. That evening, two med-
ical friends of Einstein’s were called to Princeton from New York: Rudolf Ehr-
mann, who had been his physician in Berlin, and Gustav Bucky, a radiologist. On
Thursday Frank Glenn, a cardiac and aortic surgeon from New York Hospital,
was also called in for consultation. After the doctors had deliberated, Einstein
asked Dr Dean if it would be a horrible death. Perhaps, one does not know, he
was told. Perhaps it will be minutes, perhaps hours, perhaps days [D3]. ‘He was
very stoical under pain,’ Dr Dean said a few days later [D4]. During this period,
Einstein often resisted being given morphine injections and firmly refused all sug-
gestions for an operation. ‘I want to go when / want. It is tasteless to prolong life
artificially; I have done my share, it is time to go. I will do it elegantly’ [D2]. On
Friday he was moved to Princeton Hospital. That evening a call was made to his
son Hans Albert in Berkeley, who immediately left for Princeton and arrived on
Saturday afternoon. ‘On Saturday and Sunday, I was together quite a lot with iny
father, who much enjoyed my company’ [E14]. On Saturday Einstein called the
house to ask for his glasses. On Sunday he called for writing material [D3]. That
evening he appeared to be resting comfortably.

Alberta Rozsel, a night nurse at the hospital, was the last person to see Einstein
alive. At 1:10 a.m. on April 18, ‘Mrs Rozsel noted that he was breathing differ-
ently. She summoned another nurse, who helped her roll up the head of the bed.
Right after the other nurse left, Dr. Einstein mumbled in German. Then, as Mrs
Rozsel put it, “he gave two deep breaths and expired’” [D4]. It was 1.15 in the
morning.

The news was made public at 8 a.m. The autopsy performed that morning

*By Dr Thomas F. Harvey, who removed the brain, part of which now rests in a bottle somewhere
in Weston, Missouri (Wl).

478

journey’s end

showed that death had been caused by ‘a big blister on the aorta, which broke
finally like a worn-out inner tube’ [D4]. Later that morning, Hermann Weyl
came to the hospital, where he and Dr Dean spoke to reporters.

At 2 p.m. the body was removed to the Mather Funeral Home in Princeton
and from there, ninety minutes later, to the Ewing Crematorium in Trenton,
where twelve people close to Einstein gathered.* One of them spoke briefly, recit-
ing lines from Goethe’s Epilog zu Schiller's Glocke. The body was cremated
immediately thereafter. The ashes were scattered at an undisclosed place.

References

Dl. H. Dukas, letter to C. Seelig, Bibl. ETH, Zurich, HS 304:133.

D2. , letter to A. Pais, April 30, 1955.

D3. , letter to C. Seelig. May 8, 1955; Bibl. ETH, Zurich, HS 304:90.

D4. G. K. Dean, The New York Times, April 19, 1955.

El. A. Einstein, letter to M. Besso, April 21, 1946; EB, p. 376.

E2. , Dialectica 2, 320 (1948).

E3. in Albert Einstein: Philosopher- Scientist (P. A. Schilpp, Ed.), p. 2. Tudor,

New York, 1949.

E4. , The New York Times, December 11, 1945.

E5. , co-signing a statement published in The New York Times, October 10, 1945.

E6. , The New York Times, September 15, 1945.

E7. , Impact 1, 104 (1950).

E8. , letter to G. Nellhaus, March 20, 1951.

E9. , letter to W. Frauenglass, published in The New York Times, June 12, 1953.

ElO. , letter to A. Sommerfeld, December 14, 1946.

Ell. , letter to K. Blumenfeld, March 25, 1955.

El 2. , Schweizensche Hochschulzeitung 28, 1955, special issue. Reproduced with

a small deletion in Helle Zeit, dunkle Zeit (C. Seelig, Ed.). Europa, Zurich, 1956.
E13. , letter to V. Besso, March 21, 1955; EB, p. 537.

E14. H. A. Einstein, letter to C, Seelig, April 18, 1955; Bibl. ETH, Zurich, HS 304:566.
Ml. D. Mitrany, Jewish Observer and Middle East Review, April 22, 1955.

Nl. O. Nathan and M. Norden, Einstein on Peace, p. 542. Schocken, New York, 1968.
N2. —and—, [Nl], p, 546.

N3. R. Nissen, letter to C. Seelig, June 29, 1955; Bibl. ETH, Zurich, HS 304:906/
911.

N4. O. Nathan and M. Norden, [Nl], p. 631.

N5. — and—, [Nl], pp, 643-4.

SI. C. Seelig in Helle Zeit, dunkle Zeit, p. 86. Europa Verlag, Zurich, 1956.

Wl. N. Wade, Science 213, 521 (1981).

•Their names arc found in [SI].

I saw Einstein for the last time in December 1954.

As he had not been well, he had for some weeks been absent from the Institute,
where he normally spent a few hours each morning. Since I was about to take a
term’s leave from Princeton, I called Helen Dukas and asked her to be kind
enough to give my best wishes to Professor Einstein. She suggested I come to the
house for a brief visit and a cup of tea. I was, of course, glad to accept. After I
arrived, I went upstairs and knocked at the door of Einstein’s study. There was
his gentle ‘Come.’ As I entered, he was seated in his arm chair, a blanket over his
knees, a pad on the blanket. He was working. He put his pad aside at once and
greeted me. We spent a pleasant half hour or so; I do not recall what was dis-
cussed. Then I told him I should not stay any longer. We shook hands, and I said
goodbye. I walked to the door of the study, not more than four or five steps away.
I turned around as I opened the door. I saw him in his chair, his pad back on his
lap, a pencil in his hand, oblivious to his surroundings.

He was back at work.

479

VIII

APPENDICES

Of Tensors and a Hearing Aid
and Many Other Things:
Einstein’s Collaborators

All of Einstein’s major papers are his alone. However, over the years he had a
remarkably large number, more than thirty, of co-workers. Einstein did not like
crowds, never cared for teaching classes, and did not create a school. But he loved
to talk physics, as was illustrated in such delightful ways during the session of the
Einstein symposium in Princeton devoted to ‘working with Einstein’ [Wl). The
four men who reminisced on that occasion had all worked with him during the
1930s and 1940s. Their respective collaborative efforts all dealt with general rel-
ativity and unified field theory, Einstein’s exclusive interests during that period.
All of them were men much younger than Einstein who had come to him in the
formative stages of their development.

It was not quite like that in earlier times. Along with the younger physicists
who came even in those days, Einstein also had collaborators who belonged to his
own generation, men like Laub, the Habicht brothers, Grossmann, Ehrenfest,
Bucky, Miihsam, and Tolman. Pauli, though twenty years younger than Einstein,
was already a mature physicist when he and Einstein wrote a joint paper. Fur-
thermore, in the early days, even though relativity was already a main topic of
concern, there was a greater variety of research subjects that interested Einstein.
For example, he is the co-author of experimental papers dealing with refrigera-
tors, a hearing aid, gyromagnetism, and the permeability of membranes for col-
loids. It would appear that in the early years Einstein had more fun.

To understand Einstein the physicist, it would be of some interest to organize
a reunion, albeit on paper only, of all his collaborators.* It is the purpose of this
appendix to do so. The format will be a series of thumb-nail sketches in which
the nature of the various collaborations are stated and in which it is indicated what
became of the people who worked with Einstein.**

•I believe but cannot certify that the list of collaborators given in what follows is complete. I do not
include men such as Besso, with whom Einstein had important scientific discussions not accompanied
or followed by a joint enterprise.

••See also |P1| for an accouni of Einslein’s earliest scientific collaborations.

483

484

APPENDICES

1. Jakob Johann Laub. b. 1872, Jagerndorf, Austria. PhD with W. Wien in
Wurzburg, November, 1906. Laub published on special relativity as early as 1907
[LI]. At the beginning of 1908, he wrote to Einstein in Bern, asking if he could
work with him [L2]. The resulting collaboration led to two papers on the electro-
dynamics of ponderable media [El, E2].* In 1910, Laub wrote the first major
review article on the experimental basis of special relativity [L3]. He became pro-
fessor of physics in La Plata, Argentina. Later, he joined the Foreign Service of
Argentina and was the Argentinian ambassador to Poland at the time of the Ger-
man invasion in 1939. d. 1962, Fribourg, Switzerland.

2. Walter Ritz. b. 1878, Sion, Switzerland. PhD in Goettingen with Voigt,
1902. Privatdozent in Goettingen from 1908, the year in which he discovered the
combination principle for line spectra. Ritz did not accept special relativity, but
rather believed in the need to give up the notion of a field described by partial
differential equations (see [P2], Sec. 3). Ritz and Einstein published one very brief
joint paper, written in April 1909. 1 stretch the notion of collaboration by includ-
ing it, since it is a tersely phrased joint communique in which both men state what
they have agreed to differ on. The issue was whether advanced and retarded solu-
tions of the electromagnetic field equations are both admissible types of solutions.
‘Ritz considers the restriction to the . . . retarded potentials as one of the roots of
the second law [of thermodynamics], whereas Einstein believes that the irrevers-
ibility rests exclusively on probability grounds’ [Rl]. The life of Ritz, a gifted
man, was short and beset with much illness, d. 1909, Goettingen.

3. and 4. The Habicht Brothers. Johann Conrad, b. 1876, and Franz Paul,
b. 1884, both in Schaffhausen, Switzerland.** Conrad was one of the members of
the Akademie Olympia in Bern. He obtained a doctorate in mathematics in 1903,
then became a high school teacher, first in Schiers (Graubiinden), then in
Schaffhausen, where he died in 1958. Paul, an engineer, founded a small factory
for the production of electrical and acoustical equipment. He, too, died in
Schaffhausen, in 1948.

As the result of a note on voltage fluctations in a condensor, ‘a phenomenon
similar to Brownian motion’ [E3], that Einstein wrote in 1907, he became inter-
ested in the possibility of amplifying small voltage differences. He conceived the
idea of using for this purpose a condensor with variable capacity which is charged
at low voltage and maximum capacity, then discharged at a higher voltage and at
minimum capacity into another condensor. This process was to be repeated with
the help of a set of condensors coupled in series. It was his hope that this electro-
static device might be of use for research in radioactivity. In December 1907 Ein-
stein wrote to Conrad that Paul planned to build this ‘Maschinchen,’ (little
machine), as Einstein always affectionately called it, in his own laboratory. Ein-

*Thcsc papers arc discussed in |P2], Secs. 33,35.

** Biographical details about Conrad and Paul Habicht and found in [HI | and [R2j, respectively. I
am indebted to H. Licb, Staatsarchivar from Schaffhausen, for directing me to these articles.

EINSTEIN’S COLLABORATORS

485

Stein was quite excited about his invention and at one time must have even con-
sidered patenting it. ‘I am very curious how much can be achieved — I have rather
high hopes. I have dropped the patent, mainly because of the lack of interest of
the manufacturer [?)’ [E4]. A few months later, he published his proposal [E5]
and in 1908 tried to construct his own Maschinchen (E6]. In 1910 the Habicht
brothers published the results of experiments ‘performed together with A. Einstein
at the laboratory of the University of Zurich,’ in which Einstein’s idea was real-
ized with the help of a set of six rotating condensers [H2]. Einstein still continued
to take a lively interest in the project after his own work had gone in other direc-
tions. In 1911 [E7] and again in 1912 [E8), he wrote from Prague to Besso about
the great success Paul had had in demonstrating the apparatus in Berlin.

Rapid advances in amplification technology overtook Einstein’s design, how-
ever. After Paul’s death in 1948, Einstein wrote to Conrad, ‘The memory awakens
of old days in which I worked with your brother on the . . . little machine. ... It
was wonderful [Schon war es], even though nothing useful came of it’ [E91.

5. Ludwig Hopf. b. 1884, Niirnberg. PhD with Sommerfeld in 1909. Hopf
met Einstein in September 1909 at the Salzburg physics meeting and soon joined
him at the University of Zurich as his assistant. Together they wrote two papers
on classical statistical aspects of radiation, including the problem of the motion of
a resonator in a radiation field [ElO, Ell]. Hopf arranged a meeting between
Einstein and Carl Jung, the psychoanalyst [Slj. In 1911 Hopf accompanied Ein-
stein to Prague. Later that year he accepted an assislantship at the Technische
Hochschule in Aachen, where he eventually became a professor in hydrodynamics
and aerodynamics. He did important work in these fields, contributed to the
Handbuch der Physik [H3], and was co-author of a highly esteemed textbook on
aerodynamics [Flj. He lost his position at Aachen in 1934 because he was a non-
Aryan. Soon thereafter he moved to Dublin as professor of mathematics at Trinity
College, d. 1939, Dublin.

6. Emil Nohei Assistant to Einstein in Prague. Nothing is recorded about
him in the literature except for a few brief comments in the biography by Philipp
Frank: ‘Nohei . . . was the son of a small Jewish farmer, and as a boy he walked
behind the plow. He had the quiet poise of a peasant rather than the nervous
personality so often found among the Jews . . .’ [F2]. I am grateful to Y. Nohei
from Haifa for providing me with more details about his father. With his per-
mission, I quote from his letter to me [Nlj.

Emil Nohei was born in the small Czech village of Mcelly, the son of a farmer.*
He received a German education in Prague, where he entered the German Uni-
versity in 1904. Anton Lampa, the professor of experimental physics in Prague,
advised the young student not to take physics as a main subject ‘since all the orig-
inal work had already been done, the laws had been established, and important
new developments were not be be expected.’ Nohei therefore took mathematics as

♦In the 1860s, it became legal for Jews to acquire land in that region.

486

APPENDICES

his major subject and physics as a secondary subject. After Einstein arrived in
Prague, he took Nohel as his assistant upon Lampa’s recommendation. There is
no record of Nohel’s subsequent research. ‘The many hours Einstein and my
father spent together in Einstein’s study, his world view and character left a lasting
impression on my father. ... He was fond of Einstein’s first wife and regretted
their separation.’ Nohel got his PhD in 1912 or 1913. After Einstein’s return to
Zurich, Nohel became a mathematics teacher at the Handelsakademie in Vienna,
a post he retained until the Anschluss of 1938. From 1938 to 1940 he was first a
teacher, then the principal of the Chayes Gymnasium, the only remaining sec-
ondary school which Jewish children could attend in Vienna. In 1942 he was
interned in Theresienstadt (Teresin). He is mentioned in studies of life in the
camp as being active in educational work. After the rest of his family died in
Teresin, he voluntarily joined his sister upon deportation to the extermination
camps. Letters by Nohel to his son were deposited in the Yad va-Shem Memorial
Archives in Jerusalem. Einstein attempted to help Nohel but without success
[E12].

7. Otto Stem. b. 1888, Sohrau, upper Silesia, (now Zory in Poland). PhD in
1912 in physical chemistry with Otto Sackur in Breslau. Stern came to Prague
with his own independent means to join Einstein and accompanied him to Zurich
when Einstein took up his position at the ETH. Einstein and Stern wrote a joint
paper dealing with an attempt (unsuccessful) to interpret anomalies in the specific
heats of gases at low temperatures [EH]. Helped by Einstein’s advocacy. Stern
became Privatdozent in Zurich in 1913. The next year he moved to Frankfurt,
where the Stern-Gerlach experiments were performed in 1920-2. His discovery
of the anomalous magnetic moment of the proton was made in Hamburg in 1933.
Stem left Germany after the Nazis came to power, to become research professor
of physics at the Carnegie Institute of Technology (now Carnegie- Mellon Uni-
versity) in Pittsburgh. In 1944 he received the 1943 Nobel prize in physics ‘for
his contributions to the molecular ray method and the discovery of the magnetic
moment of the proton.’ After his retirement in 1946, he divided his time between
Berkeley and Zurich. When Jost and I visited him in Berkeley in the early 1960s,
he told us with tears in his eyes of the beautiful days with Einstein in Prague.*
d. 1969, Berkeley.

8. Marcel Grossmann. b. 1878, Budapest. Fellow student of Einstein at the
ETH, 1896-1900. PhD in 1902 with Fiedler in Zurich. Grossmann and his
father were instrumental in getting Einstein appointed to the patent office in Bern.
In 1905 Einstein dedicated his PhD thesis to the younger Grossmann. The Ein-
stein-Grossmann collaboration is discussed at length in Chapter 12. d. 1936,
Zurich. Einstein remembered Grossmann with gratitude in his last autobiograph-
ical sketch [El 4].**

•See also (82].

••For other biographical details about Grossmann, see [Klj and (S3].

EINSTEIN’S COLLABORATORS

487

9. Adriaan Daniel Fokker. b. 1887, Buitenzorg, Dutch East Indies, (now
Bogor, Indonesia). PhD in 1913 with Lorentz in Leiden on the Brownian motion
of an electron in a radiation field [F3]. This work led to the Fokker-Planck equa-
tion for Gaussian Markov processes. Fokker worked with Einstein in Zurich dur-
ing the winter semester in 1913-14. Their joint paper on the Nordstrom theory
of gravitation [El 5) was discussed in Section 13b. In later years, Fokker wrote
several papers on relativity as well as a Dutch textbook on that subject. He became
the curator of the Teyler Foundation in Haarlem and concurrently held a profes-
sorship at Leiden. He was a passionate advocate of 31 -tone music and of the
purity of the Dutch language, d. 1972, Beekbergen, Holland.

10. Wander Johannes de Haas. b. 1878, Lisse, Holland. PhD in 1912 with
Kamerlingh Onnes in Leiden. Soon after obtaining this degree, de Haas and his
wife (nee Geertruida Luberta Lorentz, the oldest of the three children of H. A.
Lorentz) went to Berlin, where he worked first in the laboratory of Henri du Bois
and then with Einstein at the Physikalisch Technische Reichsanstalt. This led to
the discovery of the Einstein -de Haas effect, as described^n Section 14b. In 1925
de Haas succeeded Kamerlingh Onnes at Leiden. He was a leading and produc-
tive figure in experimental low-temperature physics. He retired from his Leiden
position in 1948. d. 1960, Bilthoven, Holland.

/ 1. Jakob Grommer. b. Brest-Litovsk, a Russian town in the year (not known
to me) of Grommer’s birth, a Polish town from 1921 to 1939 (Grommer held a
Polish passport at one time), now Brest in the U.S.S.R. As a young man, Grom-
mer devoted himself exclusively to the study of the Talmud.* A burning interest
in mathematics brought him to Goettingen. According to Helen Dukas, Grommer
spoke only Yiddish when he arrived in Germany. In Goettingen ‘he aroused the
curiosity of the mathematicians soon after his arrival. In an incredibly short time,
he not only acquired a deep knowledge of mathematics but also managed to write
a doctoral thesis which is considered outstanding by insiders. ... If one considers
that he was disfigured as the result of a malignant disease** and that he was,
moreover, physically weak, then one can appreciate how uncommon the talents
were which this man brought along into this world’ (El 6].

Grommer worked with Einstein for ten years, the longest period any person
collaborated with him. The first mention of him is in Einstein’s 1917 paper on
cosmology [E17]. Six years later, they published a joint paper in which it was
shown that the Kaluza theory does not admit centrally symmetric singularity-free
solutions [El 8]. Shortly thereafter, Einstein mentioned Grommer’s work again in
one of his own papers [El 9]. In 1925 Einstein wrote that Grommer had faithfully
assisted me in recent years with all calculations in the area of general relativity

‘This was staled by Einstein in a note written in 1953 IE161 at the request of an Israeli committee
that was preparing a book on the history of the Jews of Brest-Litovsk ICl}.

“Grommer suffered from acromegaly. Einstein mentioned that this affliction often made Grommer
irritable.

488

APPENDICES

theory’ [E20). In 1927 they wrote a joint paper on the problem of motion in gen-
eral relativity (see Chapter 15) [E21]. Another acknowledgment [E22] indicates
that Grommer was in Berlin at least as late as 1928. Funds for his support came
in part from the Kaiser Wilhelm Institut [K2]. While in Germany, Grommer
worked on the preparation of a mathematics and physics textbook in Hebrew for
use in high schools in Palestine. Weizmann had authorized financial support for
this project [R31. In the late 1920s, Grommer accepted a university position in
Minsk. In 1929 he wrote to Einstein from Minsk that some of his lectures were
given in Russian, others in Yiddish [Gl). He was later elected to the Bielorussian
Academy of Sciences in Minsk, d. 1933, Minsk.

12. Paul Ehrenfest. b. 1880, Vienna. PhD in Vienna in 1904 with Boltz-
mann. Ehrenfest first met Einstein in Prague in 1912. Their deep friendship
lasted until Ehrenfest’s death. In 1922 they wrote a joint paper on the Stern -
Gerlach effect, in which the pre-quantum mechanical difficulties of understanding
this phenomenon are clearly demonstrated [E23]. Another joint paper, written the
next year, deals with an extension of Einstein’s earlier work on spontaneous and
induced emission and absorption of radiation to two-photon states, with an appli-
cation to the Compton effect [E24]. From 1913 to 1933 Ehrenfest was professor
of theoretical physics in Leiden, d. 1933, Amsterdam, by his own hand. ‘Paul
Ehrenfest, in memoriam,’ one of Einstein’s finest and most moving pieces of prose,
was written to honor a friend and ‘the best teacher in our profession I have ever
known.’* In this note Einstein shows his great sensitivity to the fate of physics and
physicists.

13. Hans Muhsam** b. 1876, Berlin. In 1900 Miihsam passed his final med-
ical examinations, started a private practice, and became a staff member at the
Jewish Hospital in Berlin. He first met Einstein in 1915. ‘At that time, his name
was little known in lay circles’ [Ml]. The meeting came about because of a chance
encounter between the Miihsams and Elsa Einstein. On that occasion Muhsam
told Elsa that he had heard of Albert Einstein and that she, Elsa, had a famous
name. When Einstein heard of this, he became curious and got in touch with the
Miihsams. A friendship developed. The men would go on Sunday hikes during
which they discussed physics and also medical and biological problems [S4).

In 1923 Einstein and Muhsam wrote a joint paper on the experimental deter-
mination of the permeability of filters [E26]. The purpose of the experiment was
to find the maximum diameter of colloidal particles capable of permeating a given
rigid membrane. The membrane consists of the walls of a tube that is open at one

* Einstein’s article on Ehrenfest was originally published in the Almanak van hel Leidsche Studen-
tencorps in 1934. Its English version is found in one of his collections of essays (E25].

**1 obtained most of the biographical information about Muhsam from letters by him and his wife,
Minna, to Carl Seelig. These letters are now in the Historisch-Wissenschaftliche .Sammlung in the
main library of the ETH in Zurich.

EINSTEIN’S COLLABORATORS

489

end. The open end is connected to an air pump. The empty tube is hung in a bath
of aether (chosen for its low capillary constant a). The aether fills the membrane
pores. The air pump serves to increase the pressure inside the tube until, at a
pressure p, air bubbles begin to appear in the aether. Then p = 4ff/d. Here d is
the diameter of the widest membrane pores and is therefore the optimal colloidal
diameter to be determined. The authors record the results of experiments in which
diameters of about 1 ^m were obtained.

The friendship between the two men grew and became very important in Ein-
stein’s life. ‘For a long period, Einstein visited us daily in Berlin’ [M2]. Mrs
Muhsam wrote to Seelig after her husband’s death, ‘Do you know that Einstein
once said to me, “First comes your husband, then for a long while comes nothing,
and only then come all other people”?’ [M3]. I have reasons to believe that
Muhsam became Einstein’s closest confidant in the Berlin days. It was to
Muhsam that Einstein told the story of having, at age twelve, composed songs in
honor of God which he would sing to himself on his way to school [S5] (see Chap-
ter 3). When Muhsam once asked what would have become of Einstein if he had
been born the son of poor Russian Jews, Einstein replied that he would probably
have become a rabbi [S6]. Muhsam could have informed us better than anyone
else about personal events which may well have contributed to Einstein’s becoming
a figure who went his lonely separate way in physics after 1926.

Einstein and Muhsam kept in touch after the Einsteins had settled in the
United States and the Miihsams had fled from Germany to Israel. A letter from
Einstein in 1942 still shows personal touches: ‘I have become a lonely old chap
who is mainly known because he does not wear socks and who is exhibited as a
curiosum on special occasions’ [E27]. In that same letter, he also writes about his
work: ‘In regard to work, I am more fanatic than ever and really hope to have
solved my old problem of the unity of the physical field. However, it is like an
airship with which one can sail around in the clouds without seeing clearly how
to land in reality, that is, on earth.’ Muhsam died in Haifa in 1957.

14. Leo Szilard, b. 1898, Budapest. He went to Berlin for his university
education. ‘As soon as it became clear to Szilard that physics was his real interest,
he introduced himself, with characteristic directness, to Albert Einstein. I believe
it was largely Szilard’s doing that Einstein gave a seminar on statistical mechan-
ics. . . . The seminar was a unique experience for most participants; it also
inspired, I believe, Szilard’s doctoral dissertation’ [W2]. PhD in Berlin in 1922
with von Laue. Until 1933 Szilard worked at one of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institutes
in Berlin. From 1928 to 1933 he was also Privatdozent at the University.

Einstein and Szilard made a considerable number of joint patent applications,
eight German (November 1927 -December 1930), six British (December 1927-
December 1929), one U.S. (December 16, 1927), one to Einstein’s old patent
office in Bern (December 21, 1928), and one Dutch (December 27, 1928). All
applications were granted except for two of the British ones. All the German pat-

490

APPENDICES

ents were awarded after Einstein had left that country. In 1927 Einstein autho-
rized Szilard to apply in his own name for patents abroad of some of their joint
ventures [E28].

A detailed discussion of these patents is found in Szilard’s collected papers
[F4].* Briefly, the task Einstein and Szilard had set for themselves was to devise
a noiseless household refrigerator. Their principal novelty was the so-called Ein-
stein-Szilard pump, later described by Einstein in general terms. ‘By means of an
alternating electric current, a magnetic guide field is generated which moves a
liquid mixture of sodium and potassium. This mixture moves in alternating direc-
tions inside a casing and acts as the piston of a pump; the refrigerant [inside the
casing] is thus mechanically liquified and cold is generated by its re-evaporation’
[E29]. It appears that the inventors received a modest amount of money for their
work [S7|, but it did not make them rich. ‘As it turned out, such refrigerators
were never commercially utilized because of the rapid advances made in mechan-
ical refrigerators which eliminated their objectionable noise, the dangers from
leakage of the poisonous refrigerant, and erratic operation’ [F4]. However, there
were other applications. ‘For many years there did not appear to be any other
practical use for such pumping systems, but with the advent of atomic energy their
need became evident (first to Szilard), and much effort has since been expended
in their further development’ [F4|.

In 1933 Szilard went to England. In 1938 he settled in the United States. His
first position was at Columbia University. He then moved to Chicago, where he
participated in the first nuclear reactor project. In 1946 he was appointed profes-
sor of biophysics at the Enrico Fermi Institute in Chicago. ‘In his work in biology,
Szilard finally reached his full potential’ [W2]. He had a strongly developed
political conscience. On August 2, 1939, he and Eugene Wigner called on Einstein
to urge him to bring the need for action on the development of atomic weapons to
the attention of President Roosevelt. This visit led to the letter drafted and signed
by Einstein which was handed to Roosevelt on October 11, 1939. Later, Szilard
suggested that Einstein write a second letter to the president, urging him to speed
up these activities. A letter to this effect was sent on March 7, 1940. d. 1964,
Lajolla, California.

15. Rudolf Goldschmidt.** b. 1876, Neubukow (Mecklenburg-Schwerin),
Germany. Engineering diploma in 1898. From 1899 to 1909, Goldschmidt
worked in England with such electrotechnical firms as Westinghouse. Upon his
return to Germany, he became first Privatdozent, later professor, in Darmstadt.
One of his main achievements was the invention of the high-frequency apparatus

*See also (K3], {M4], and (M5]. The Swiss patent is mentioned in (FS) and (M5), not in [F4).

•*1 am grateful to Professor Goldschmidt’s daugther-in-law Rose Goldie from New Malden, Surrey,
England, and to Horst Melcher from Potsdam for information which was of great help to me in the
preparation of this note on the Einstein- Goldschmidt patent. I first became aware of this patent
through Professor Melcher’s papers |M4, M5j.

EINSTEIN’S COLLABORATORS

491

used in the first radiotelegraphic link between Germany and the United States,
opened on June 19, 1914, with an exchange of telegrams between Wilhelm II and
Woodrow Wilson.

In the 1920s, Goldschmidt was director of an industrial research laboratory in
Berlin-Moabit. He held many patents. One of these, German patent 590783, held
jointly with Einstein, has the following history. An acquaintance of Einstein, a
distinguished singer, had become hard of hearing. In 1928 Einstein asked Gold-
schmidt’s assistance in developing a new type of hearing aid for her. At that time,
he sent his friend one of his poetic creations:

Ein biszchen Technik dann und wann

Auch Griibler amusieren kann.

Drum kuhnlich denk ich schon so weit;

Wir legen noch ein Ei zu zweit.*

The final patent is entitled ‘Device, especially for sound-reproduction equipment,
in which changes of an electric current generate movements of a magnetized body
by means of magnetostriction.’ It was issued on January 10, 1934. Einstein’s
address is given as ‘Earlier in Berlin, present residence unknown.’

Goldschmidt emigrated to England in 1934 and in later years kept up a cor-
respondence with Einstein, d. 1950, Bournemouth, England.

16. Cornelius Lanezos. (born Kornel Loewy, the name later Hungarianized).
b. 1892, Szekesfehervar, Hungary. PhD in 1921 with Rudolf Orlvay in Szeged.
Lanezos corresponded with Einstein from 1919 on and had already written over
a dozen papers on general relativity when he came to work with Einstein. In 1928,
Einstein wrote to Erwin Madelung in Frankfurt am Main, asking if it would be
possible for Lanezos to have a year’s leave of absence from his position as an
assistant and Privatdozent at the University of Frankfurt in order to work with
Einstein on problems in unified field theory (E30]. A week later, Lanezos wrote
to Einstein, ‘Young Bethe is being considered as my deputy’ [L4]. Lanezos arrived
in Berlin in November 1928 for a one-year period. There are no Joint papers.
Einstein refers to Lanezos’ work in one of his articles on distant parallelism [E31],
a subject on which Lanezos wrote a review two years later [L5].

Lanezos returned to Frankfurt at the end of 1929. His distinguished career
included a professorship at Purdue (1931-46), a period of work in industry, and,
after 1954, a professorship at the Institute for Advanced Studies in Dublin. He
wrote a number of books, three of which deal with Einstein, his oeuvre, and his
influence [L6, L7, L8]. d. 1974, Budapest.

17. Hermann Mxintz. I have only a few bit^raphical notes on Muntz. He
was born in Poland and later became a German citizen [M6]. He corresponded

*In prose translation: A bit of technique now and then/Can also amuse thinkers./Tlicrefore, auda-
ciously I’m thinking far ahead: One day we’ll produce something good together.

492

APPENDICES

with Einstein at least as early as 1927. In 1928 Einstein wrote to him on distant
parallelism: This mathematically so natural theory is worthy of serious consid-
eration, especially in view of the current desperate state of theoretical physics’
[E32]. Miintz came to work with Einstein during the period Lanczos was there.
Both men were supported by stipends from the Notgemeinschaft Deutscher Wis-
senschaftler [K4].* Einstein acknowledged Muntz’s work in two papers on distant
parallelism [E31, E33]. In 1929 Miintz became professor of mathematics at the
University of Leningrad, where he received an honorary doctorate in 1935. After
declining to become a Soviet citizen, Miintz had to leave the Soviet Union in 1937
[M7]. In 1938 he arrived in Sweden. Einstein contacted several Jewish agencies
in attempts to obtain financial support for him. I do not know what became of
him after 1938.

18. Walther Mayer, b. 1887, Graz, Austria. Studied at the ETH in Ziirich
and at the universities of Vienna, Paris, and Goettingen. PhD in 1912 in Vienna,
where he became Privatdozent in 1926. In 1929 he completed a book on Rieman-
nian geometry, part of a textbook on differential geometry [Dl).

After the departure of Lanczos and Miintz, Einstein contacted Richard von
Mises in Vienna to ask if he knew of someone interested in working with him. In
December 1929, von Mises recommended Mayer [M8]. The Einstein-Mayer
collaboration started soon after and was at once a success. In January 1930 Ein-
stein requested a stipend for Mayer from the Preussische Akademie [K5). In Feb-
ruary 1930 they published their first joint paper, on static solutions of the distant
parallelism theory [E34]. Einstein must rapidly have concluded that he wanted to
keep Mayer close to him, for in June he wrote to the mathematician Ludwig
Bicberbach in Berlin, asking if a job for Mayer could be found [E35]. In October
Einstein presented to the Prussian Academy a paper by him and Mayer in which
a new unified field theory was proposed, one based on a four-dimensional space-
time continuum with a five-dimensional tangent space attached at each pint
[E36].*'*' Mayer (as well as Helen Dukas) accompanied the Einsteins on their
first trip to California (December 1930-March 1931), since Einstein did not wish
to interrupt the collaboration. Right after their return, a sequel to the October
1930 papr was submitted [E37]. In December 1932 they completed their last
joint papr to be published in Germany. It deals with semi-vectors and spinors
[E38] and was the last papr published by Einstein in the Sitzungsberichte of the
Preussische Akademie.

Meanwhile, in October 1932, Einstein had been appinted professor at The
Institute for Advanced Study with the understanding that his first priod in
Princeton would start in October 1933. Throughout the negotiations with Abra-

*This fund existed from 1920 to 1934 under the presidency of Friedrich Schmidt-Ott, Its purpose
was to give financial support to promising young PhD’s and Privatdozentc who could not manage
to start their academic career without outside aid.

••See Chapter 17.

EINSTEIN’S COLLABORATORS

493

ham Flexner, the first director of the Institute, Einstein insisted on an appoint-
ment for Mayer as an essential condition for his own acceptance of the new posi-
tion. After other conditions of his professorship had been settled to mutual
satisfaction, Einstein wrote to Flexner, ‘Now my only wish is that Herr Dr W.
Mayer, my excellent co-worker, will receive an appointment that is formally inde-
pendent of my own. Until now, he has suffered very much from the fact that his
abilities and achievements have not found their deserved recognition. He must be
made to feel that he is being appointed because of his own achievements and not
for my sake’ [E39].

The next two Einstein-Mayer papers again dealt with semi-vectors [E40,
E41]. They were produced during their stay at Le Coq sur Mer in Belgium (see
Section 25b). At that time, the spring of 1933, Mayer’s Princeton appointment
had still not been settled, and Einstein wrote to Flexner urging him to exercise
care in the choice of people he might approach for opinions on Mayer [E42]. A
subsequent letter to Flexner shows that Einstein could put the pressure on if he
wanted to: ‘You will by now have learned through the press that I have accepted
a chair at Madrid University. ... In view of my relations to the Spanish govern-
ment, I feel it is my duty to write to you about my assistant, Professor W. Mayer.
The Spanish government has conceded me the right to recommend to them a
mathematician to be appointed as full professor under my direction. Now, as I
have very great regard for Professor Mayer’s abilities, not only as my collaborator
but also as an independent researcher in pure mathematics whose achievements
are notable and valuable, he would be the right man to take up such a professor-
ship. He would not have thought of asking me to recommend him for this post
had he not felt it as a set-back that he was appointed to your Institute not as a
full professor but only as an associate professor with a salary that hardly corre-
sponds to his merits and his needs. I therefore find myself in a difficult position:
either to recommend him for Spain or to ask you whether you could possibly
extend his appointment to a full professorship. This would be the only way of
retaining him for your Institute and for a collaboration with me. I would deplore
it very much indeed if I were deprived of his valuable collaboration; and his
absence from the Institute might even create some difficulties for my own work.
Besides, his resignation would be a great loss to your Institute’ [E43].

The very high importance which Einstein still attached to the collaboration
with Mayer is also evident from his reply to a proposal by Flexner that Mayer
arrive in Princeton some weeks before Einstein would be there: ‘[This] would
severely impair our joint work , . . [since] we would be torn away from each other
[voneinander gerissen] for a whole month . . .’ [E44].

Einstein prevailed, and Mayer was given a tenured psition with the title of
associate, the only appintment of its kind ever made by the Institute. The entire
collaboration of Einstein and Mayer in the United States consists of one Joint
papr, the last one on semi-vectors [E45]. After 1934 Mayer returned to his own
pursuits in pure mathematics. It is my understanding that he no longer wished to

494

APPENDICES

be associated with work on unified field theory and that he believed his career
would best be furthered by independent work. I knew him during the last years
of his life, a gentle and somewhat diffident figure with an office on the third floor
in Fuld Hall. d. 1948, Princeton.

19. Richard Chase Tolman. b. 1881, West Newton, Massachusetts. PhD in
physical chemistry in 1910 with Arthur Noyes. Professor at California Institute
of Technology 1922. Author of two books on relativity theory [Tl, T2]. During
Einstein’s first visit to California, Tolman collaborated with Ehrenfest and Podol-
sky on a study of the gravitational field produced by light [ E46] and with Einstein
and Podolsky on a less-than-successful study of the measurement problem in
quantum mechanics [E47]. d. 1948, Pasadena, California.

20. Willem de Sitter, b. 1872, Sneek, Holland. PhD in Groningen with Jaco-
bus Kapteyn. Proposed the ‘de Sitter universe’ in 1917. Director of the Leiden
astronomical observatory 1919-34. During Einstein’s second visit to California,
he published a joint note with de Sitter [E48] in which a cosmologically flat uni-
verse is proposed (without cosmological term and with zero pressure), d. 1934,
Leiden.

21. Boris Podolsky, b. 1896, Taganrog, Russia. Emigrated to the United
States in 1913. PhD with Paul Epstein at CalTech 1928. Podolsky met Einstein
in Pasadena in 1931 and collaborated with him and Tolman. He was in Charkov
in the early 1930s where he worked with Fock and Dirac on quantum electro-
dynamics. He was a member of The Institute for Advanced Study in 1934-35,
when the Einstein- Podolsky- Rosen collaboration took place [E49) (Section 25c).
In this paper, the term xrnve function is used. I was sure that Einstein had not
done the actual writing, since he would invariably use the expression psi-junction
instead. Nathan Rosen told me that the paper was written by Podolsky. Later
Podolsky became research professor at the Xavier University in Cincinnati 1D21.
d. 1966, Cincinnati.

22. Nathan Rosen, b. 1909, Brooklyn, New York. ScD at MIT in 1932.
Rosen wrote his master’s thesis on distant parallelism and then went to Princeton
to work on theoretical molecular physics.* While in Princeton, he solicited Ein-
stein’s opinion on his master’s thesis. This contact led to a period of collaboration.
Rosen was a member of The Institute for Advanced Study in 1934-5. The first
joint paper was the Einstein -Podolsky- Rosen article, the main idea of which
came from Rosen. This was followed two months later by a paper on singularity-
free solutions of the combined gravitational and electromagnetic field [E50]. In
1936 they published a note on the general relativistic two-body problem [E51 ] and
in 1937 a paper on cylindrical gravitational waves [E52].

In the course of working on this last problem, Einstein believed for some time
that he had shown that the rigorous relativistic field equations do not allow for the
existence of gravitational waves [II, 82). After he found the mistake in the argu-

*1 am indebted to Nathan Rosen for telling me of his experiences.

EINSTEIN’S COLLABORATORS

495

merit, the final manuscript was prepared and sent to the Physical Review. It was
returned to him accompanied by a lengthy referee report in which clarifications
were requested. Einstein was enraged and wrote to the editor that he objected to
his paper being shown to colleagues prior to publication [E53]. The editor cour-
teously replied that refereeing was a procedure generally applied to all papers
submitted to his Journal, adding that he regretted that Einstein may not have been
aware of this custom [T3]. Einstein sent the paper to the Journal of the Franklin
Institute and, apart from one brief note of rebuttal [E54], never published in the
Physical Review again.

The final version of the gravitational wave paper was completed in 1937. At
that time Rosen was in the Soviet Union, where Einstein had helped him to obtain
a temporary position. He had written to Vyacheslev Molotov, at that time the
chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars, asking him to facilitate Rosen’s
projects (E55]. The little man with the pince-nez must have replied to the good
professor, for shortly afterward Einstein wrote again to Molotov to thank him for
his help [E56]. Since 1952 Rosen has been professor at the Technion in Haifa.

23. Gustav Bucky. b. 1 880, Leipzig. Bucky, a physician specializing in radiol-
ogy, met the Einsteins in Berlin in the course of treating Use Kayser-Einstein.
The Buckys and the Einsteins became friends after the two families moved to the
United States. On October 27, 1936, the two men obtained joint patent No.
2,058,562 from the U.S. patent office for a photoelectric device. An open photo-
electric eye in the front of a camera takes in the object to be photographed as the
camera is pointed and automatically moves a screen of varying transparency in
front of the camera lens. d. 1963, New York.

24. Leopold Infeld. b. 1898, Cracow. PhD in 1921 with Ladislas Natanson
in Cracow. In his student days, Infeld once called on Einstein in Berlin [II] and
corresponded with him from 1927 on. In 1934 Einstein wrote an introduction to
a popular scientific book by Infeld [E57]. Infeld was a member of The Institute
for Advanced Study in 1936-7, and he and Einstein wrote three joint articles
[E58, E59, E60] on the problem of motion in general relativity, the first one being
the well-known Einstein -Infeld -Hoffmann paper mentioned in Chapter 15. In
1938 Einstein and Infeld wrote The Evolution of Physics, a popular scientific book
written to help Infeld financially [E61]. In his autobiography. Quest, Infeld wrote
about his days with Einstein. Einstein was not enthusiastic about this book. ‘One
should not undertake anything which endangers the tenuous bridge of confidence
between people’ [E62]. Infeld was professor at the University of Toronto from
1938 to 1950 and at the University of Warsaw from 1950 until his death, d. 1968,
Warsaw.

25. Banesh Hoffmann, b. 1906, Richmond, England. In 1929 Hoffmann
started work on projective relativity with Veblen. PhD in 1932 with Veblen at
Princeton. A member of The Institute for Advanced Study in 1935-7. Hoffmann
co-authored the aforementioned paper with Einstein and Infeld [E58]. He has
been professor at Queens College in New York City since 1952 and is author of

496

APPENDICES

an excellent popular biography of Einstein [H4] and, together with Helen Dukas,
of a book on memorable pronouncements by Einstein [D3].*

26. Peter Gabriel Bergmann. b. 1915, Berlin. PhD in 1936 in Prague with
Philipp Frank, who recommended him to Einstein. Bergmann worked with Ein-
stein from 1936 to 1941. They published two joint papers on the five-dimensional
unification of electromagnetism and gravitation (Kaluza-Klein theory), the second
one in collaboration with Bargmann [E63, E64]. Einstein wrote an introduction
to Bergmann’s textbook on relativity [E65]. Since 1950, Bergmann has held a
professorate at Syracuse University.

21. Valentin Bargmann. b. 1908, Berlin, of Russian parents. PhD in 1936
with Gregor Wentzel in Zurich, German citizen from 1925 until deprived of Ger-
man citizenship in 1934. Member of The Institute for Advanced Study 1937-46.
Bargmann and Einstein published two papers together, the one with Bergmann
Just mentioned [E64] and a paper on bivectors (E66].** (Bivectors are quantities
7 '^(xi,jc 2), depending on a pair of space-time points, transforming under general
coordinate transformations like the product AJ^x^)B,{x^, where AJ^x^) and B^x^
are ordinary 4-vector fields.] Bargmann became professor at the University of
Pittsburg and, afterwards, professor of mathematical physics at Princeton Uni-
versity.

28. Wolfgang Pauli, b. 1900, Vienna. PhD in 1921 with Sommerfeld in
Munich, Einstein wrote a laudatory review [E68] of Pauli’s review article [P2]
on relativity theory. Pauli spent the years 1940-6 at The Institute for Advanced
Study in order to escape the menaces of war. In 1943 he wrote a joint paper with
Einstein [E69] in which it was proved that any everywhere regular and static
solution of the source-free gravitational equations which behaves at large distances
like a Schwarzschild solution must have a vanishing Schwarzschild mass. (A sim-
ilar theorem was shown to hold in the Kaluza-Klein theory. )-]■

It will be obvious that this brief comment is not in any way meant to do justice
to Pauli’s contributions and influence in regard to relativity theory and relativistic
quantum theory. For a survey of Pauli’s oeuvre, see [E71]. d. 1958, Zurich.

29. Ernst Gabor Straus, b. 1922, Munich. Assistant to Einstein 1944-8. At
the time Straus came to work with Einstein, the latter was much interested in the
problem of finding generalizations of general relativity that are not based on dif-
ferential geometry. He also discussed these matters with Pauli at that time. Two
examples of such generalizations (about which Einstein never published) are
found in Straus’s reminiscences [Wlj, A joint paper on the influence of the expan-
sion of space on the gravitational fields surrounding individual stars was written

*Thc reader is urged to read the reminiscences of Hoffmann, Bargmann, Bergmann, and Straus in
(Wl].

**Einstein also wrote a sequel to this paper (E67).

fThis is an improved version of an earlier result obtained by Einstein alone {E70]

EINSTEIN’S COLLABORATORS

497

without awareness of numerous earlier contributions to this subject by others
[E72]. A second paper dealt with asymmetric connections (see Chapter 17) [E73].
In 1948 Straus received his PhD at Columbia University. He is now professor of
mathematics at UCLA.

30. John Kemeny. b. 1926, Budapest. Assistant to Einstein 1948-9. Kemeny
wrote to me, ‘When Straus left for the West Coast [in 1948], Einstein was search-
ing for a new assistant. I was introduced to him by mutual friends. ... He was at
that time in the final stages of publishing unified field theory. He had narrowed
down the search to about three alternative versions of the theory and was trying
to choose amongst them. The year’s work resulted in choosing one of the versions,
which he did publish the following year. After he had settled on a particular the-
ory, the next problem clearly was to try to solve the partial differential equations.
That is about as far from my specialty in mathematics as you can get! Therefore
I strongly recommended to Einstein that he not reappoint me but that he get a
specialist’ [K6|.*

In 1949 Kemeny obtained his PhD in mathematics at Princeton University,
where he was appointed assistant professor of philosophy in 1951. Since 1970 he
has been president of Dartmouth College.

31. Robert Harry Kratchnan. b. 1928, Philadelphia. PhD in 1949 at MIT
with H. Feschbach. Assistant to Einstein in 1949-50. At present, an independent
consultant.

32. Bruna Kaufman, b. 1928, New York City. PhD in 1947 at Columbia
University. Assistant to J. von Neumann at The Institute for Advanced Study,
1947_8. Assistant to Einstein from 1950 until Einstein’s death in April 1955. (In
March 1955, Einstein had recommended an extension of her assistantship to
June, 1956 [E74].)

Kaufman was Einstein’s last collaborator. She and Einstein wrote two joint
papers, both dealing with asymmetric connections 1E75, E76]. The last collabo-
rative effort in Einstein’s life was completed in January 1955. After Einstein’s
death, Kaufman and Kurt Godel put in order the scientific papers in Einstein’s
office. Room 1 15 in Fuld Hall. At the Bern conference, later in 1955, Kaufman
gave the final progress report on Einstein’s unified field theory program [K8].

Bruria now lives in Kibbutz Mishmar ha’Emek.

References

Bl. C. Burstin, letter to A Einstein, April 20, 1933.

Cl. N. Chinitz, letter to A. Einstein, March 29, 1953.

D1 . A. Duschek and W. Mayer, Lehrbuch der Dijferentmlgeometrie (2 vols.). Teubner,
Leipzig, 1930.

*For other recollections of Kemeny, see [K?]

498

APPENDICES

D2. H. H. Denman, Physics Today, March 1967, p. 141.

D3. H. Dukas and B. Hoffmann, Albert Einstein, the Human Side: New Glimpses
From His Archives. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., 1979.

El. A. Einstein and J. J. Laub, AdP2Sy 532 (1908); corrections in 27, 232 (1908) and
28, 445 (1908).

E2. and , AdP2e, 541 (1908).

E3. — , AdP 22, S69 (mi).

E4. , letter to C. Habicht, December 24, 1907.

E5. , Phys. Zettschr. 9, 216 (1908).

E6. , letter to J. Stark, December 14, 1908. Reprinted in A. Hermann, Sudhoffs

Archiv 50, 267 (1966).

E7. , letter to M. Besso, December 12, 1911; EB, p. 40.

E8. , letter to M. Besso, February 4, 1912; EB, p. 45.

E9. , letter to C. Habicht, August 15, 1948.

ElO. and L. Hopf, AdP33, 1096 (1910).

Ell. and , AdP^^, 1105 (1910).

E12. , letter to F. R. Schwarz, February 7, 1946.

E13. and O. Stern, AdP 40, 551 (1913).

E14. in Helle Zeit, dunkle Zeit (C. Seelig, Ed.). Europa Verlag, Zurich, 1956.

E15. and A. D. Fokker, AdP 44, 321 (1914).

El 6. , statement prepared for N. Chinitz, April 7, 1953.

E17. , PAW, 1917, p. 146.

E18. and J. Grommer, Senpta Jerusalem Univ. 1, No. 7 (1923).

E19. — , P.4 IV, 1923, p. 359.

E20. ,P.41V, 1925, p. 419.

E21. and J. Grommer, PAW, 1927, p. 2.

E22. , PAW, 1929, p. 7.

E23. and P. Ehrenfest, Z. Phys. 11, 31 (1922).

E24. and , Z. Phys. 19, 301 (1923).

E25. , Out of My Later Years (3rd edn.), p. 236. Citadel Press, Secaucus, N.J.,

1977.

E26. and H. Muhsam, Deutsch. Medizin Wochenschr.,\^\2 (1923).

E27. , letter to H. Muhsam, undated, summer 1942. Quoted in Se, p. 412.

E28. , letter to L. Szilard, September 12, 1927.

E29. , letter to M. jSger, April 13, 1934.

E30. , letter to E. Madelung, September 29, 1928.

E31. ,P.41V, 1929,p. 156.

E32. , letter to H. Miintz, July 1928.

E33. , PAW, 1929, p. 156.

E34. and W. Mayer, PAW, 1930, p. 110.

E35. , letter to L. Bieberbach, June 19, 1930.

E36. and W. Mayer, PAW, 1931, p. 541.

E37. and , PAW, 1932, p. 130.

E38. and , PAW, 1932, p. 522.

E39. , letter to A. Flexner, July 30, 1932.

E40. and W. Mayer, Proc. K. Ak. Amsterdam 36, 497 (1933).

E41. and , Proc. K. Ak. Amsterdam 36, 615 (1933).

EINSTEIN’S COLLABORATORS

499

E42. , letter to A. Flexner, March 24, 1933.

E43. , letter to A. Flexner, April 13,1933.

E44. , letter to A. Flexner, August 4, 1933.

E45. and W. Mayer, Ann. Math. 35, 104 (1934),

E46. P. Ehrenfest, R. C. Tolman, and B. Podolsky, Phys. Rev. 37, 602 (1931).

E47. A. Einstein, R. C. Tolman, and B. Podolsky, Phys. Rev. 37, 780 (1931).

E48. and W. de Sitter, Proc. Nat. Ac. Set. 18, 213 (1932).

E49. , B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Phys. Rev. 47, 777 (1935).

E50. and N. Rosen, Phys. Rev. 48, 73 (1935).

E51. and , Phys. Rev. 49, 404 (1936).

E52. and , J. Franklin Inst. 223, 43 (1937).

E53. , letter to J. T. Tate, July 27, 1936.

E54. , Phys. Rev. 89, 321 (1953).

E55. , letter to V. Molotov, March 23, 1936.

E56. , letter to V. Molotov, July 4, 1936.

E57. in L. Infeld, The World of Modern Science, p. 5. V. Gollancz, London, 1934.

E58. , L. Infeld, and B. Hoflfmann, Ann. Math. 39, 65 (1938).

E59. and L. Infeld, Ann Math. 41, 455 (1940).

E60. and , Can J. Math. 3, 209 (1941).

E61. and , The Evolution of Physics. Published simultaneously by Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge; Sythoff’s, Amsterdam; and Simon and Schuster New
York; 1938.

E62. , letter to L. Infeld, undated, probably April 1941.

E63. and P. Bergmann, Ann. Math. 39, 65 (1938).

E64. , V. Bargmann, and P. Bergmann in Th. von Kdrmdn Anniversary Volume,

p. 212. California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, 1941.

E65. in P. Bergmann, Introduction to the Theory of Relativity, p. v. Prentice-Hall,

New York, 1942.

E66. and V. Bargmann, Ann. Math 45, 1 (1944)

E67. , Ann. Math. 45, 15 (1944).

E68. , Naturw. 10, 184 (1922).

E69. and W. Pauli, Ann. Math. 44, 131 (1943).

E70. , Rev. Univ. Nac. de Tucuman, 2, 11, (1941).

E71. C. P. Enz in J. Mehra, The Physicists’ Conception of Nature, p. 766. Reidcl, Bos-
ton, 1973.

E72. A. Einstein and E. Straus, Rev. Mod. Phys. 17, 120 (1945); correction in 18, 148
(1946).

E73. and , Ann. Math. 47, 731 (1946).

E74. , letter to J. R. Oppenheimer, March 31, 1955.

E75. and B. Kaufman, Ann. Math. 59, 230 (1954).

E76. and . Ann. Math. 62, 128 (1955).

FI. F. Fuchs and L. Hopf, Aerodynamik. R. C. Schmidt, Berlin, 1922.

F2. P. Frank, Einstein, His Life and Times, p. 82. A. Knopf, New York, 1953.

F3. See A. D. Fokker, Phys. Zeitschr. 15, 96 (1914).

F4. B. T. Feld and G. Weiss-Szilard (Eds.). The Collected Works of Leo Szilard, Vol.

1, p. 527. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1972.

F5. M. Fliickiger, Einstein in Bern, p. 148. Paul Haupt, Bern, 1974.

500

APPENDICES

Gl. J. Grommer, letter to A. Einstein, 1929, undated.

HI. M. Habicht, Verh. Schw. NaturJ. Ges.y 1959, p. 405.

H2. C. Habicht and P. Habicht, Phys. Zeitschr. 11, 532 (1910).

H3. L. Hopf, Handbuch der Physik, Vol. 7, p. 91. Springer, Berlin, 1927.

H4. B. Hoffmann, Albert Einstein, Creator and Rebel. Viking Press, New York, 1972.
II. L. Infeld, Quest, pp. 261-70. Doubleday, New York, 1941.

Kl. L. Kollros, Verh. Schw. NaturJ. Ges. 118, 325 (1937).

K2. C. Kirsten and H. J. Treder, Albert Einstein in Berlin, Vol. 1, p. 154. Akademie,
Berlin, 1979.

K3. and , [K2], Vol. 2, p. 290.

K3. and , [K21, Vol. 2, p. 290.

K4. and , [K2], Vol. 1, pp. 36, 137.

K6. J. G. Kemeny, letter to A. Pais, November 27, 1979.

K7. in Einstein, a Centenary Volume (A. P. French, Ed.), p. 34. Heinemann,

London, 1979.

K8. B. Kaufman, Helv. Phys. Acta Suppl. IV, 227 (1956)

LI. J. J. Laub, /ld/P23,738 (1907).

L2. , letter to A. Einstein, February 2, 1908.

L3. , Jahrb. Rad. Elektr. 7, 405 (1910).

L4. C. Lanczos, letter to A. Einstein, October 6, 1928.

L5. , Erg Ex. Naturw. 10, 97 (1931).

L6. , Albert Einstein and the Cosmic World Order. Interscience, New York, 1965

L7. , Space Through the Ages. Academic Press, New York, P70

L8. , The Einstein Decade, 1905-1915. Academic Press, New York, 1974

Ml. M. Miihsam, letter to C. Seelig, July 10, 1955.

M2. , letter to C. Seelig, May 3, 1956.

M3. , letter to C. Seelig, September 10, 1959.

M4. H. Melcher, Spektrum, Monatszeit. fur Wiss. Akad. der Wiss DDR, September
1978, p. 23.

M5. , Der Neuerer, May /June 1979, p. 202.

M6. H. Muntz, letter to A. Einstein, March 14, 1938

M7. , letter to A. Einstein, November 25, 1937

M8. R. von Mises, letter to A. Einstein, December 17, 1929.

Nl. Y. Nohel, letter to A. Pais, January 1, 1980.

PI. L. Pyenson, Hist. St. Phys. Sci. 7, 83 (1976).

P2. W. Pauli, Encyklopddie der Mathematischen Wissenchaften, Vol. 5, Part 2, p. 539.
Teubner, Leipzig, 1921. In English: Theory of Relativity (G. Field, Tran.). Per-
gamon Press, London, 1958.

Rl. W. Ritz and A. Einstein, Phys. Zeitschr. 10, 323 (1909).

R2. M. Russenberger, Mitt. Naturf. Ges. Schajfhausen 23, 301 (1949).

R3. Roscnblueth, letter to the University Committee, c/o Zionist Executive, London,
March 25, 1925.

51. Se, p. 181.

52. Se,pp. 215-6.

53. W. Saxer, Viertelj. Schrift Naturf Ges. Zurich 81, 322, (1936).

54. Se, p. 412.

55. Sc, p. 15.

EINSTEIN’S COLLABORATORS

501

56. Se, p. 16.

57. L. Szilard, letter to A. Einstein, October 12, 1929.

Tl. R. C. Tolman, The Theory of the Relativity of Motion. University of California
Press, Berkeley, 1917.

T2. , Relativity, Thermodynamics and Cosmology. Oxford University Press

Oxford, 1934.

T3. J. T. Tate, letter to A. Einstein, July 30, 1936.

Wl. H. Woolf (Ed.), Some Strangeness in the Proportion, p. 459. Addison-Wesley,
Reading, Mass., 1979.

W2. E. P. Wigner, Biogr. Mem. Nat. Ac. Sci. 40, 337 (1964).

How Einstein
got the Nobel Prize

The procedure of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences for awarding the Nobel
prize in physics is in outline as follows. Invitations to nominate are sent out by a
five-member Nobel Committee (hereinafter called the Committee) elected from
the membership. This Committee studies the proposals and supporting material,
draws up a protocol of its deliberations, and decides by majority vote on a rec-
ommendation to the Academy. The recommendation is then transmitted in the
form of a report (hereinafter called the Report) that summarizes the merits of the
proposals handed to the Committee and gives the reasons for its decision. The
recommendation is voted on first by the Academy Klass (section) of physics. Then
follows the decisive vote by the Academy tn pleno (not Just the physicists). These
votes need not agree with the Committee’s recommendation. For example, in 1908
the Committee unanimously proposed Planck. The Klass vote was also in support
of Planck. But the Academy chose Lippmann.

The case of Planck sheds additional light on the controversial nature of the
quantum theory in its early days. ‘This suggestion [Planck] got a rough treatment

in the Academy After the defeat in 1908, the Committee had gotten “cold

feet” as far as Planck was concerned. Also, of course, the importance but also the
contradictions of quantum theory came more into focus from around 1910 on,
[and] so the award to Planck was postponed in the hope that the difficulties of the
quantum theory could be sorted out’ [Nl].

It was my privilege to be given access to Committee Reports and letters of pro-
posal bearing on Einstein’s Nobel prize. Once more, I thank all those in authority
for entrusting me with this material, especially Professor Bengt Nagel, who was
kind enough to answer additional questions.

The Academy’s decisions have nearly always been well received by the com-
munity of physicists. To be sure, eyebrows (including my own) are raised on
occasion. That, however, is not only inevitable but also irrelevant to the account
about to be given. My sole focus will be upon matters of great historical interest:
the scientific judgments of leading physicists who made the proposals and the judg-

502

HOW EINSTEIN GOT THE NOBEL PRIZE

mcnt of R highly responsible, rather conservative body of great prestige, the Com-
mittee. The story has neither heroes nor culprits.

On November 10, 1922, a telegram was delivered to the Einstein residence in
Berlin. It read, ‘Nobelpreis fur Physik ihnen zuerkannt naheres brieflich [signed]
Aurivillius. * On that same day, a telegram with the identical text must have been
received by Bohr in Copenhagen. Also on that day, Professor Christopher Auri-
villius, secretary of the Swedish Academy of Sciences, wrote to Einstein: ‘As I have
already informed you by telegram, in its meeting held yesterday the Royal Acad-
emy of Sciences decided to award you last year’s [1921] Nobel prize for physics,
in consideration of your work on theoretical physics and in particular for your
discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect, but without taking into account the
value which will be accorded your relativity and gravitation theories after these
are confirmed in the future’ (AlJ. Bohr had been awarded the physics prize for
1922.

Einstein was not home to receive the telegram or the letter. He and Elsa were
on their way to Japan. In September, von Laue had written to him, ‘According
to information I received yesterday and which is certain, events may occur in
November which might make it desirable for you to be present in Europe in
December. Consider whether you will nevertheless go to Japan’ [LI]. Einstein
left anyway and would not be back in Berlin until March 1923. Recall that the
previous three years had been a hectic period in his life.** In January 1919, he
and Mileva divorced. At that time, he promised that he would give her the money
he was to receive when his Nobel prize came. In 1923 the entire 121 572 Kronor
and 54j0fre (about $32 000 or SF 180 000 in 1923 money) was indeed transmitted
to her.f In June 1919, he married Elsa; in November there was the excitement
about the bending of light. In 1920 his integrity and his work came under attack
from some German quarters. In 1921 he traveled to the United States and
England. Early in 1922 he visited France. Rathenau was murdered just a few
months before Einstein set out for Japan, glad to absent himself for a while from
a potentially dangerous situation. The news of the award must have reached him
while he was en route. 1 do not know, however, when and where he received word.
The travel diary he kept during that journey makes no mention of this event.

On December 10, 1922, Rudolf Nadolny, the German ambassador to Sweden,
accepted the Nobel prize in Einstein’s name and, in a toast offered at the banquet
held in Stockholm that evening, expressed ‘the joy of my people that once again
one of them has been able to achieve something for all mankind.’ To this he added

*N.p. for physics awarded to you more by letter.

**Sec Chapter 16 .

I Helen Dukas, private communication.

504

APPENDICES

‘the hope that also Switzerland, which during many years provided the scholar a
home and opportunities to work, will participate in this joy’ [L2).

Nadolny’s reprt to the Foreign Office in Berlin, sent two days later, shows that
he had conscientiously coped with a problem in international relations. In Novem-
ber he had been asked by the Swedish Academy to represent Einstein. Next the
Swiss ambassador had asked for clarification since, to his knowledge, Einstein was
a Swiss citizen. On December 1, Nadolny cabled the University of Berlin for
information. On December 4 he received a telegram from the Prussian Academy:
‘Antwort: Einstein ist Reichsdeutscher.’ On December 11 the Foreign Office
informed him that Einstein was Swiss. On January 13, 1923, the Prussian Acad-
emy informed the Kultusministerium in Berlin that on May 4, 1920, Einstein had
taken the oath as a state official and was therefore German, since only Germans
can be state officials. The protocol of the Prussian Academy of January 18 quotes
the legal opinion that Einstein was a German citizen but that his Swiss citizenship
was not thereby invalidated. On February 15 the Prussian Academy informed
Einstein of this ruling. On March 24 Einstein wrote to the Prussian Academy
that he had made no change in citizenship status as a condition for his position in
Berlin. On June 19 Einstein called in person on Ministerialrat Rottenburg and
reiterated his position, noting that he traveled on a Swiss passport. A note on this
visit, prepared by Einstein on February 7, 1924, for inclusion in the Acta of the
Prussian Academy reads in part, ‘(R.j was of the decided opinion that my appoint-
ment to the Akademie implies that I have acquired Prussian citizenship, since the
opposite opinion cannot be maintained on the basis of the Acta. 1 have no objec-
tions to this view.’* Meanwhile, on April 6, 1923 Use Einstein had written to the
Nobel Foundation in Stockholm that Professsor Einstein would appreciate it if the
medal and diploma could be sent to him in Berlin, adding that if this were to be
done via diplomatic channels ‘The Swiss Embassy should be considered, since Pro-
fessor Einstein is a Swiss citizen’ [El]. The end of the affair came when Baron
Ramel, the Swedish ambassador to Germany, called on Einstein in Berlin and
handed him his insignia.

In March 1923 Svante Arrhenius, one of the Committee members, wrote to
Einstein suggesting that the latter not wait until December for his visit to Sweden
but that he come in July. He could then attend a meeting of the Scandinavian
Society of Science in Goteborg on the occasion of the 300th anniversary of the
founding of that city. Arrhenius left to Einstein the choice of topic for a general
lecture, ‘but it is certain that one would be most grateful for a lecture about your
relativity theory’ [A2]. Einstein replied that he was agreeable to this suggestion,
though he would have preferred to speak on unified field theory [E2|. On a very
hot day in July, Einstein, dressed in black redingote, addressed an audience of
about two thousand in the Jubilee Hall in Goteborg on ‘basic ideas and problems
of the theory of relativity’ [E3]. King Gustav V, who was present, had a pleasant

*A11 official documents pertaining to this affair are reproduced in [Kl}.

HOW EINSTEIN GOT THE NOBEL PRIZE

505

chat with Einstein afterward [HI]. Einstein later gave a second, more technical
lecture at Chalmers Technical Institute for about fifty members of the Science
Society.

I turn next to the labors of the Committee.

The records of the Committee show that Einstein received nominations for the
physics prize for each of the years 1910 through 1922 except for 1911 and 1915.
In order to facilitate its task, the Committee often divides the nominees into more
specialized categories, the purpose being to identify the leading candidate for each
category and then to compare these leading candidates only. For each year in the
following synopsis, I give the name of the category that Einstein was included in,
the company joining him in that category, and, in parentheses, the winner of the
year.

1910. Investigations of a theoretical or mathematical-physical character.
Gullstrand, Planck, Poincare; (Van der Waals).

(Poincare had been nominated on several earlier occasions. The exceptionally
high number (thirty-four) of signatories to letters nominating Poincare in 1910
was the result of a campaign mounted by Mittag Leffler. Some physicists also
signed: M. Brillouin, M. Curie, Lorentz, Michelson, and Zeeman In its Report,
the Committee noted that neither Poincare’s brilliant mathematical contributions
nor his mathematical-philosophical essays (especially mentioned by many nomi-
nators) could be designated discoveries or inventions within physics ‘unless one
gives these concepts an especially broad interpretation.’)

1911. Einstein is not nominated; (Wien).

1912. Theoretical physics. Heaviside, Lorentz, Mach, Planck; (Dalen).
(Lorentz, who shared the 1902 prize with Zeeman, was nominated by Wien for
a prize to be shared with Einstein. Mach was nominated by Ferdinand Braun,
who shared the 1909 prize with Marconi for his practical contributions to wireless
telegraphy. Poincare, now in another category, was nominated only by Darboux.)

1913. Theoretical physics. Lorentz, Nernst, Planck; (Kamerlingh Onnes).
(Count Zeppelin and the Wright brothers were nominated in other categories.)

1914. Work of a more speculative nature, theoretical physics. Eotvos, Mach,
Planck; (von Laue).

(Mach was nominated by Ostwald.)

1915. Einstein is not nominated; (father and son Bragg share the prize).

1916. Molecular physics. Debye, Knudsen, Lehmann, Nernst. The 1916
physics prize was never awarded.

1917. Investigations connected with Planck’s extremely fruitful researches
concerning the quantum hypothesis. Bohr, Debye, Nernst, Planck, Sommerfeld,
(prize deferred).

(Bohr appears for the first time, nominated by Chwolson from Petrograd for a
prize to be shared with Knudsen.)

5o6

APPENDICES

1918. Quantum physics. Bohr, Paschen, Planck, Sommerfeld; (prize deferred;
1917 prize goes to Barkla).

1919. Theoretical physics. Knudsen, Lehmann, Planck; (Stark; also, 1918
prize goes to Planck).

1920. Mathematical physics. Bohr, Sommerfeld; (Guillaume).

1921. Same as 1920; (prize deferred).

1922. Einstein is not categorized. On November 9 Einstein is awarded the
1921 prize, Bohr the 1922 prize.

Who nominated Einstein? On what grounds? How did the Committee
respond?

The first to propose Einstein was the physical chemist Wilhelm Ostwald, to
whom Einstein had unsuccessfully applied for an assistantship in the spring of
1901 (see Chapter 3). Ostwald, winner of the chemistry prize for 1909, the only
one to propose Einstein for 1910, repeated his nominations for the 1912 and 1913
awards. In all three instances, his sole motivation was relativity (until further
notice, relativity shall refer to the special theory). In 1910 he wrote that relativity
was the most far-reaching new concept since the discovery of the energy principle
[01]. In his second nomination, he stressed that relativity frees man from bonds
many thousands of years old [02]. On the third occasion, he emphasized that the
issues were of physical rather than of philosophical principle (as others had sug-
gested) and likened Einstein’s contributions to the work of Copernicus and Dar-
win [03]. For the 1912 Einstein nomination, Ostwald was joined by E. Prings-
heim, C. Schaefer, and W. Wien; for 1913 again by Wien and by Bernhard Nau-
nyn, a German professor of medicine. All these nominations were for relativity
only, though Naunyn added a remark on the quantum theory. Pringsheim wrote,
‘I believe that the Nobel Committee will rarely have the opportunity of awarding
a prize for works of similar significance’ [PI].

Wien’s two nominations were actually for a prize to be shared by Einstein and
Lorentz (and Schaefer proposed either Einstein or else a sharing between Einstein
and Lorentz). It is important to quote again* from Wien’s second letter of nomi-
nation. ‘Concerning the new experiments on cathode rays and beta rays, I would
not consider them to have decisive power of proof. The experiments are very sub-
tle, and one cannot be sure whether all sources of error have been excluded’ [ W1 ].
At issue was the verification of Einstein’s relation between the rest mass, the
energy, and the velocity of a free electron. As was discussed in Chapter 7, by 1908
some experimentalists were already claiming confirmation of the Einstein relation.
Doubts remained, however, as Wien’s letter shows; these were not dispelled until
about 1915. Thus, one important confirmation of relativity became noncontro-
versial only after the 1912 nominations had been made. Sommerfeld’s theory of
the fine structure of spectral lines, in which essentially the same Einstein relation
is used, also came later, in 1916. By then, the momentous new development of
general relativity had drastically changed the situation.

'I mentioned these same phrases in Section It.

HOW EINSTEIN GOT THE NOBEL PRIZE

507

Before turning in more detail to the later nominations, I first note the reactions
of the Committee to the earlier ones. In the Report for 1910, it was suggested that
one should wait for further experimental verification ‘before one can accept the
[relativity] principle and in particular award it a Nobel prize. This [need for fur-
ther confirmation] is presumably the reason why only now [my italics] Einstein
was proposed, though the principle in question was put forward in 1905 and
caused the liveliest stir.’ The Committee also noted that Einstein’s work on
Brownian motion had gained him great recognition. The comments on relativity
in the Report for 1912 are similar to those in the Report for 1910. ‘Lorentz was
undoubtedly more cautious with his hypotheses than Einstein,’ it is noted. In the
Report for 1913 is found a remark that relativity is on its way to becoming a
serious candidate for the award even though (the Committee notes) there may be
considerable doubt about likening Einstein to Copernicus or Darwin. I leave my
own comments on this period until later except for registering my lack of surprise
at not finding Lorentz among those who nominated Einstein for special relativity.

During the next few years, there was an inevitable lull. Einstein was deeply
immersed in the struggle with general relativity and was confusing everybody,
including himself, with his hybrid theory in which everything was covariant
except the gravitational field equations. In 1914 he was nominated by Naunyn
(relativity, diffusion, gravitation) and by Chwolson (contributions to several
domains in theoretical physics). The Report for 1914 notes vaguely that it may
take a long time before the last word is said about Einstein’s theory of relativity
and his other work. He was not nominated for the 1915 prize. For 1916 there
was only one letter. Ehrenhaft proposed him for Brownian motion and for special
and general relativity. It is observed in the Report that this last work is not yet
complete.

The upswing started, slowly, with the nominations for 1917. A. Haas proposed
Einstein for the new theory of gravitation, quoting the explanation of the peri-
helion precession of Mercury. E. Warburg nominated him for his work in quan-
tum theory, relativity theory, and gravitation. The third and last letter that year,
by Pierre Weiss from Zurich, is the finest nomination for Einstein ever written
[W2]. For the first lime we find an appreciation of the whole Einstein, whose
work represents ‘un effort vers la conquete de I’inconnu.’ The letter first describes
Einstein’s work in statistical mechanics centering on Boltzmann’s principle, then
the two axioms of special relativity, next the light-quantum postulate and the pho-
toelectric effect, then the work on specific heats. It concludes by noting Einstein s
experimental efforts. The Report for 1917 refers to ‘the famous theoretical phys-
icist Einstein,’ speaks highly of his work, but concludes with a new experimental
snag: The measurements of C. E. St John at Mount Wilson had not found the
red shift predicted by general relativity, it appears that Einstein s relativity the-
ory, whatever its merits in other respects may be, does not deserve a Nobel prize.

1918. Warburg and Ehrenhaft repeat their earlier nomination; Wien and von
Laue independently propose a shared prize for Lorentz and Einstein for relativity;
Edgar Meyer from Zurich cites Brownian motion, specific heats, and gravitation;

5o8

APPENDICES

Stefan Meyer from Vienna cites relativity (from now on, relativity refers to the
special and the general theory). The Report is in essence identical with that of the
year before.

1919. Warburg, von Laue, and E. Meyer repeat their earlier nomination.
Planck nominates Einstein for general relativity since ‘[he] made the first step
beyond Newton’ [P2]. Arrhenius nominates Einstein for Brownian motion. Per-
rin, Svedberg, and Gouy, all of them major contributors to experiments on Brown-
ian motion, are also put in nomination. The Report goes in detail into statistical
problems, including Einstein’s PhD thesis and its correction as well as his work
on critical opalescence. However, it is noted, Einstein’s statistical papers are not
of as high a caliber as his work on relativity and quantum physics. ‘It would
undoubtedly appear peculiar to the learned world if Einstein were to receive the
prize for [statistical physics] ... and not for his other major papers.’ It is suggested
that one should wait for clarification of the red shift problem— and for the solar
eclipse of May 29!

1920. Warburg repeats his earlier nomination; Waldeyer-Hartz from Berlin
and L. S. Ornstein from Utrecht cite general relativity. A letter dated January 24,
1920, signed by Lorentz, Julius, Zeeman, and Kamerlingh Onnes stresses the
theory of gravitation. The successes of the perihelion motion and the bending of
light are emphasized. It is suggested that the red shift experiments are so delicate
that no firm conclusions should be drawn yet. Einstein ‘has plac ed himself in the
first rank of physicists of all time.’ Lorentz was deeply impressed by the results
of the 1919 eclipse expeditions. A few months earlier, he had described these to
Ehrenfest as ‘one of the most brilliant confirmations of a theory ever achieved’
[L3].

Bohr adds his voice, too, citing Brownian motion, the photoelectric elTect, and
the theory of specific heats, but ‘first and foremost’ relativity. ‘One faces here an
advance of decisive significance for the development of physical research’ [B1 1.

Appended to the Report for 1920 is a statement by Arrhenius, prepared at the
request of the Committee, on the consequences of general relativity. Arrhenius
noted that the red shift experiments still disagreed with the theory and that criti-
cism had been leveled from various sides against the bending of light results of the
1919 eclipse expeditions. Some of these objections were indeed sensible (for details
and references, sec [W3]). Less fortunate was Arrhenius’s reference to an alleged
explanation of the perihelion effect based on an alternative theory.* The Com-
mittee concluded that for the time being relativity could not be the basis for the
award.

1921. In a brief, forceful note Planck repeals his nomination of Einstein.

*This was in reference to work by E Gehrcke, one of the leaders of the ‘Arbeilsgemeinschafi
Deutscher Nalurforscher’ (Chapter 16). As early as 1917 Einstein had pointed out that CJchrcke^
theory is based on contradictory assumptions fE4j. In 1921 Lenard proposed Ciehrrkc for the Nobel
prize.

HOW EINSTEIN GOT THE NOBEL PRIZE

509

Haas and Warburg are also back. General relativity is cited in letters by W Dal-
lenbach (Baden), Eddington (Cambridge), G. Jaffe and E. Marx (Leipzig) G
Nordstrom (Helsingfors), W. Walcott (Washington), and O. Wiener (Leipzig)
J. Hadamard (Pans) proposes either Einstein or Perrin. T. Lyman (Harvard)
cites Einstein’s contributions to mathematical physics. Eddington writes, ‘Einstein
stands above his contemporaries even as Newton did’ [E5].

Professor Carl Wilhelm Oseen from the University of Uppsala proposes Ein-
Stein for the photoelectric effect.

At this point, the Committee requests that its member Allvar Gullstrand pre-
pare an account of the theory of relativity and that its member Arrhenius do the
same for the photoeffect.

Gullstrand, professor of ophthalmology at the University of Uppsala since
1894, was a scientist of very high distinction. He obtained his medical doctor’s
degree m 1890 and became the world’s leading figure in the study of the eye as
an optical instrument. In 1960 it was written of him: The ophthalmologists con-
sider him to be the man who, next to Helmholtz, contributed more than anyone
else to a mathematical understanding of the human eye as an optical system.
While making these investigations, he discovered a number of widespread miscon-
ceptions about optical image formation, and, being a fighter, he devoted many of
his later papers to an attempt to destroy these misconceptions’ [H2]. In 1910 and
again in 191 1, he was proposed for the Nobel prize in physics. ‘In 1911 the orig-
inal suggestion from the Committee was that the prize should be given to Professor
A. Gullstrand, Uppsala, “for his work in geometrical optics.’’ Gullstrand had
become a member of the Committee the same year. . . . However, it turned out
that the Committee for Physiology and Medicine had had the same good idea,
giving Gullstrand their prize “for his work on the dioptrics of the eye.” So Gull-
strand declined the prize in physics, and the Committee wrote an extra report
(now including Gullstrand among the signers) suggesting Wien for the prize’
[N1 1. Gullstrand was a member of the Committee for physics from 191 1 to 1929,
its chairman from 1923 to 1929.

Gullstrand’s report, highly critical of relativity, was not a good piece of work.

I quote from its summary, found in the Report for 1921. Concerning the special
theory: ‘The effects that are measurable with physical means are, however, so
small that in general they lie below the limits of experimental error.’ Also beside
the mark is his finding about the general theory: 'As Gullstrand has shown, the
situation is that it remains unknown until further notice whether the Einstein
theory can at all be brought into agreement with the perihelion experiment [!] of
Le Verrier.’ Gullstrand had fallen into the trap (he was not the only one) of
believing that he had shown that the answer for the perihelion effect is coordinate-
dependent. He also expressed the opinion (more reasonable though not very
weighty) that other, long-known deviations from the pure two-body Newtonian
law should be re-evaluated with general relativistic methods before there could be
even an attempt to identify the residual effect to be explained. On May 25, 1921,

510

APPENDICES

he had presented a paper on these considerations, a reprint of which was appended
to his report [Gl].*

The main points of Arrhenius's report were first, that a prize for quantum
theory had just been given (Planck, 1918) and second, that it would be preferable
to give an award to experimentalists if the photoeffect were to be honored.

No prize for physics was given that year.

1922. The list of signatories keeps growing. Ehrenhaft, Hadamard, von Laue,
E. and S. Meyer, Naunyn, Nordstrom, and Warburg are back. There is a beau-
tiful letter from Sommerfeld. M. Brillouin writes, imagine for a moment what
the general opinion will be fifty years from now if the name Einstein does not
appear on the list of Nobel laureates' [B2). There are also letters from T. de
Donder (Brussels), R. Emden and E. Wagner (Munich), P. Langevin (Paris),
and E. Poulton (Oxford).

Planck proposes to give the prizes for 1921 and 1922 to Einstein and Bohr,
respectively.

Oseen repeats his nomination for the photoeffect.

The Committee asks Gullstrand for an additional report on relativity and
Oseen for a report on the photoeffect.

Gullstrand sticks to his guns. His paper of the previous year [Gl] having been
criticized by Erich Kretschmann, Privatdozent in Konigsberg [K2], Gullstrand
published a rebuttal, a reprint of which he appended to his new statement [G21.

Oseen, the theoretical physicist, gives an excellent analysis of Einstein’s paper
of 1905 on the light-quantum as well as of his work in 1909 on energy fluctuations
in blackbody radiation.

The Committee proposes Einstein for the 1921 prize. The Academy votes
accordingly.

That is how Einstein got the Nobel prize ‘for his services to theoretical physics
and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect.’ That is also
why Aurivillius wrote Einstein on November 10, 1922, that his award was not
based on relativity.

In his presentation speech on December 10, 1922, Arrhenius said, ‘Most dis-
cussion [of Einstein's oeuvre) centers on his theory of relativity. This pertains to
epistemology and has therefore been the subject of lively debate in philosophical
circles. It will be no secret that the famous philosopher Bergson in Paris has chal-
lenged this theory, while other philosophers have acclaimed it wholeheartedly.’

Bergson's collected works appeared in 1970 [B31. The editors did not include
his book Duree et Simultaneite: A Propos de la Theorie d'Einstein. Einstein came
to know, like, and respect Bergson. Of Bergson's philosophy he used to say, ‘Gott
verzeih ihm,' God forgive him.

^Gullstrand had never published on relativity before that time. It is not more than my guess that he
might have become intrigued with general relativity because of one feature that he had contributed
to in a quite different context: the bending of light.

HOW EINSTEIN GOT THE NOBEL PRIZE

A further exchange between Gullstrand and Kretschmann settled their differ-
ences to mutual satisfaction [K3].

Why did Einstein not get the Nobel prize for relativity? Largely, I believe,
because the Academy was under so much pressure to award him. The many letters
sent in his behalf were never the result of any campaign. Leading physicists had
recognized him for what he was. It is understandable that the Academy was in no
hurry to award relativity before experimental issues were clarified, first in special
relativity, later in general relativity. It was the Academy’s bad fortune not to have
anyone among its members who could competently evaluate the content of relativ-
ity theory in those early years. Oseen’s proposal to give the award for the pho-
toeffect must have come as a relief of conflicting pressures.

Was the photoeffect worth a Nobel prize? Without a doubt. Einstein’s paper
on that subject was the first application of quantum theory to systems other than
pure radiation. That paper showed true genius. The order of awards for quantum
physics was perfect; first Planck, then Einstein, then Bohr. It is a touching twist
of history that the Committee, conservative by inclination, would honor Einstein
for the most revolutionary contribution he ever made to physics.

References*

Al. C. Aurivillius, letter to A. Einstein, November 10, 1922.

A2. S. Arrhenius, letter to A. Einstein, March 17, 1923.

Bl. N. Bohr, letter to SAS, January 30, 1920.

B2. M. Brillouin, letter to SAS, November 12, 1921.

B3. H, L. Bergson, Oeuvres (A. Robinet, Ed.). Presses Univ. de France, Paris, 1970.
El. Use Einstein, letter to Prof. Sederholm, April 6, 1923.

E2. A. Einstein, letter to S. Arrhenius, March 23, 1923.

E3. , Grundgedanken und Probleme der Relativitdtsiheorie. Imprimerie Royale,

Stockholm, 1923.

E4. , Verb. Deutsch. Phys. Ges. 20, 261 (1917).

E5. A. S. Eddington, letter to SAS, January 1, 1921.

Gl. A. Gullstrand, Ark. Mat. Astr. Fys. 16, No. 8 (1921).

G2. , Ark. Mat. Astr. Fys. 17, No. 3 (1922).

HI. J. A. Hedvall, letter to H. Dukas, November 19, 1971.

H2. M. Herzberger, Opt. Acta 7, 237 (1960).

Kl. C. Kirsten and H. J. Treder, Albert Einstein in Berlin, Vol. 1, pp. 113-18. Aka-
demie Verlag, Berlin, 1979.

K2. E. Kretschmann, Ark. Mat. Astr. Fys. 17, No. 2 (1922).

K3. , Ark. Mat. Ast. Fys. 17, No. 25 (1923); with an added comment by Gullstrand.

LI. M. von Laue, letter to A. Einstein, September 18, 1922.

In these references, SAS stands for Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.

512

APPENDICES

L2. Les Pnx Nobel, pp. 101-2. Imprimerie Royale, Stockholm, 1923.

L3. H. A. Lorentz, letter to P. Ehrenfest, September 22, 1919.

Nl. B. Nagel, letter to A. Pais, May 7, 1981; see also B. Nagel in Science, Technology
and Society in the Time of Alfred Nobel, Nobel Symposium, Karlskoga, 1981, to be
published.

01. W. Ostwald, letter to SAS, October 2, 1909.

02. , letter to SAS, December 21, 1911.

03. , letter to SAS, December 30, 1912.

PI. E. Pringsheim, letter to SAS, January 12, 1912
P2. M. Planck, letter to SAS, January 19, 1919.

Wl. W. Wien, letter to SAS, early January, 1912.

W2. P. Weiss, letter to SAS, January 21, 1917.

W3. L. Witten (Ed.), Gravitation. Wiley, New York, 1962.

Einstein’s Proposals
for the Nobel Prize

Einstein’s Nobel prize proposals enable us to catch glimpses of what, in his judg-
ment, were and were not important issues in his time. In what follows, the reader
will find neither a dissertation on the virtues, follies, and harm of prizes and
awards, nor a gossip column about personalities.

Nine of the following entries refer to physics proposals. Unless noted otherwise,
they are all addressed to the Nobel Committee in Stockholm in the form of letters.
There are also seven proposals for the peace prize directed to the Storting in Oslo.
One entry deals with correspondence about a Nobel prize in medicine for Sigmund
Freud, another concerns a literature prize for Hermann Broch.

/. Fall 1918. In September 1918 Einstein received a request from Stockholm
for a nomination in physics for the year 1919. In his response,* he proposes
Planck for his achievements on the subject of heat radiation and especially for the
two papers ‘‘On the law of the energy distribution in the normal spectrum” and
“On the elementary quanta of matter and electricity.” 'Because of this work, the
author has not only given a first exact determination of the absolute size of atoms
but especially [he has] also laid the foundations for the quantum theory, the fer-
tility of which for all of physics has become manifest in recent years.’** Einstein
stresses that Bohr’s theory of spectra is also based on Planck’s work.

On November 13, 1919, Planck is awarded the physics prize for 1918.

2. January 19, 1921. Einstein endorses the proposal of the Czech parliament
to give the peace prize to Tomas Garrigue Masaryk, the first president (from 1918
to 1935) of the young nation of Czechoslovakia. In his letter, Einstein lauds
Masaryk for his role in protecting oppressed minorities, especially the Czechs and
the Jews, and adds, ‘I am convinced that awarding him the Nobel prize would
represent a beautiful victory for international reconciliation — ’f

3. October 26, 1923. In response to another request for a nomination in phys-
ics, Einstein writes that he finds it difficult to make one definite proposal. ‘In order

*Undalc(l but no doubt written in the fall of 1918

’’""The references given in (PI) and (P2j (Kxur explicitly in Einstein s letters
fScc further [Nl).

513

514

APPENDICES

to case my conscience,’ he notes the following ‘approximately equivalent
possibilities:

[J.] Franck and [G.J Hertz, for their investigations of light excitation by colli-
sions with electrons

[P.] Langevin and [P.] Weiss, for the statistical theory of magnetism

[0.] Stern and [W.] Gcrlach, for the experimental proof of orientation of atoms
in a magnetic field required by the quantum theory

[A.] Sommerfeld, for his contributions to quantum mechanics

A. H. Compton, for the discovery of the quantum scattering of Roentgen
radiation

C. T. R. Wilson, for the Nebelmethode as [a method of] proof of the ionization
generated by corpuscular rays

P. Debye, for his contributions to our knowledge of molecular forces.’

In 1925 the physics prize is awarded to Franck and Hertz.

4. May 22, 1925. Einstein proposes the famous Brazilian explorer Marshal
Candido Mariano da Silva Rondon for the peace prize. ‘I take the liberty to draw
your attention to the activities of General Rondon from Rio de Janeiro, since,
during my visit to Brazil, I have gained the impression that this man is highly
worthy of receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. His work consists of adjusting Indian
tribes to the civilized world without the use of weapons or coercion.’

5. September 28, 1927. In a brief note, Einstein again proposes Compton ‘for
the discovery of the Compton effect, named after him, which is a milestone in our
knowledge about the nature of radiation.’

In 1927 the physics prize is awarded to Compton and Wilson. Compton’s cita-
tion reads, ‘For his discovery of the effect named after him.’

6. February 15, 1928. Dr Heinrich Meng from Stuttgart, editor of Zeit-
schrift fur Psychoanalytische Pddagogik, and author Stefan Zweig (then in Salz-
burg) have written to a number of prominent figures urging them to support the
nomination of Freud for the Nobel prize. On February 15, 1928, Einstein replies
to Meng, ‘With all [my] admiration for the genius of Freud’s achievement, 1 can-
not decide to intervene in the present case. About the extent of truth [Wahrheits-
gehalt] of Freud’s teachings, I cannot come to a conviction for myself, much less
[can 1] make a judgment that would also be authoritative to others. I would further
suggest to you that it is questionable whether the achievement of a psychologist
like Freud falls within the domain of the Nobel prize for medicine, which is pre-
sumably the only one that should be considered.’

Upon receiving a reply from Meng, Einstein reiterates the same views in a
letter of October 26, 1928, adding that ‘the unique difficulty of the material def-
initely requires that this judgment be left to experienced professionals.’

Far more fascinating than this award issue are the relations between two men
who each in his own way transformed his own and later times. Their jointly
authored booklet Why War? gives only minor indications of the personal senti-
ments of one in regard to the other [Elj. Much more revealing information is

Einstein’s proposals for the nobel prize

5^5

found in the excellent Freud biography by Ernest Jones [Jl]. I mention here one
additional comment by Einstein on Freud, contained in a letter written in 1949:
The old one had ... a sharp vision; no illusion lulled him asleep except for an
often exaggerated faith in his own ideas’* [E2]. I leave, of course, to myself and
to my readers all attempts to analyse what this statement reveals about Freud and
about Einstein.

7. September 25, 1928. This is the first of three letters in which Einstein
focuses attention on the founding of quantum mechanics, in my opinion, the most
important and not yet rewarded achievement in physics is the insight into the wave
nature of mechanical processes.’ He makes several suggestions. First, that one half
of an award should go to de Broglie, the other half to be shared by ‘Davison
und ein Mitarbeitcr’ (C. J. Davisson and L. H. Germer). He finds it ‘a difficult
case since de Broglie is the decisive initiator without having exhausted the issue
[because he] has not thought of the possibility of an experimental proof of the
existence of matter waves. (This is not quite correct. De Boglie did mention the
possibility of matter diffraction in his PhD thesis.) Einstein continues: ‘Equiva-
lently, the theoreticians Heisenberg and Schroedinger (one shared Nobel prize)
should be considered (for 1930?). With respect to achievement, each one of these
investigators deserves a full Nobel prize although their theories in the main coin-
cide in regard to reality content. However, in my opinion, de Broglie should take
precedence, especially because [his] idea is certainly correct, while it still seems
problematic how much will ultimately survive of the grandiosely conceived theo-
ries of the two last-named investigators.’

As further alternatives, Einstein mentions one prize to be shared by de Broglie
and Schroedinger, another by Heisenberg, Born, and Jordan. He does not con-
sider this quite ideal since Heisenberg is relatively the strongest case of the three.
Nor does he feel comfortable giving the award for quantum mechanics to theo-
reticians only.

The Dirac equation was published early in 1928. It is significant that neither
in 1928 nor at any subsequent time does Einstein ever propose Dirac.

In 1929 the physics prize is awarded to de Broglie ‘for his discovery of the wave
nature of the electron.’ In 1937, Davisson shares the prize with G. P. Thomson
‘for their experimental discoveries of the diffraction of electrons by crystals.

8. September 20, 1931. Einstein is now convinced that quantum mechanics
will survive.** He proposes ‘the founders of the wave, or quantum, mechanics,
Professor E. Schroedinger from Berlin and Professor W. Heisenberg from
Leipzig. In my opinion, this theory contains without doubt a piece of the ultimate
truth. The achievements of both men are independent of each other and so signif-
icant that it would not be appropriate to divide a Nobel prize between them.

* Dcr AUc hal aber scharf gcschcn; cr hal sich durch kcinc Illusion cinlullcn lasscn ausscr manchmal
durch cin Ubertriebcncs Venrauen in die cigenen Einf^llc.

**Scc Section 25a.

5i6

APPENDICES

The question of who should get the prize first is hard to answer. Personally,
I assess Schroedinger’s achievement as the greater one, since I have the impression
that the concepts created by him will carry further than those of Heisenberg.
[Here Einstein adds a footnote: This, however, is only my own opinion, which
may be wrong.] On the other hand, the first important publication by Heisenberg
precedes the one by Schroedinger. If I had to decide, I would give the prize first
to Schroedinger.’

Einstein’s judgment of the relative scientific merits of Schroedinger’s and Hei-
senberg’s work was indeed wrong. This may not have helped the deliberations in
Stockholm. No physics prize is awarded in 1931.

9. January 1932. Einstein writes in support of the peace prize for the
Englishman Herbert Runham Brown.* (At about the same time, a similar pro-
posal is also made by twenty-five members of the British parliament.) Of Brown,
honorary secretary of War Resisters’ International, Einstein writes, ‘Mr Runham
Brown is, in my opinion, the most meritorious active fighter in the service of
pacificism, who has indefatigably served this important cause with great
courage. . . .’

10. September 29, 1932. ‘Again this year I propose Professor E. Schroedinger
from Berlin. I am of the opinion that our understanding of the quantum phenom-
ena has been furthered most by his work in connection with the work of de Brog-
lie.’ The distinction between Schroedinger and Heisenberg is still present.

The Nobel committee for physics decides to drop the 1931 prize altogether and
to postpone the 1932 award until 1933. In 1933 they award the 1932 prize to
Heisenberg and the 1933 prize jointly to Schroedinger and Dirac.

11. October 27, 1935. Einstein has written twice before in support of others’
peace prize proposals. This time he makes his own suggestion. ‘Formally speak-
ing, I have no right to propose a candidate for the Nobel peace prize,’ but, he
adds, his conscience demands that he write anyway. He then proposes Carl von
Ossietzky, ‘a man who, by his actions and his sulTering, is more deserving of it
than any other living person.* Such an award, Einstein continues, would be ‘a
historic act that would suit to a high degree the solution of the peace problem.’**

Von Ossietzky was chief editor of Die Weltbiihne, a pacifist political weekly in
Berlin, when on March 12, 1929, an article appeared in its columns in which it
was revealed that much of the research and development for German civil aviation
was secretly directed toward military purposes. Both the author of the article and
von Ossietzky were accused of treason and sentenced to eighteen months in jail.
He received amnesty in December 1932. In February 1933, very soon after the
Nazis came to power, he was sent to a concentration camp. Efforts to nominate

•For the circumstances surrounding this action, sec [N21

••See [N3] for an account of the delicate problems arising from this proposal by Einstein and by
othen. See |G1] for a detailed biography of Ossietzky.

EINSTEIN’S PROPOSALS FOR THE NOBEL PRIZE

517

him for the peace prize, initiated in 1934, grew into an international campaign.
In January 1936, more than 500 members of the parliaments of Czechoslovakia,
England, France, Holland, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland signed petitions
nominating him for the peace prize. He stayed in the concentration camp until
May 1936, when he was moved to a prison hospital with a severe case of tuber-
culosis. In the fall of 1936, Goering offered him freedom in exchange for a dec-
laration that he would refuse the peace prize if it were awarded to him. Von
Ossietzky refused. In November 1936 he was awarded the peace prize for 1935.
On January 30, 1937, Hitler decreed that no German was henceforth permitted
to receive Nobel prizes of any kind. The Nobel committee nevertheless awarded
to Germans the chemistry prize in 1938 and the medicine prize in 1939. Both
awards were declined. Von Ossietzky stayed in a prison hospital until, in May
1938, he died of tuberculosis.

12. January 17, 1940. Einstein writes to Mrs de Haas-Lorentz: ‘Together
with some local colleagues, I have proposed Otto Stern and [I. I.] Rabi for the
invention of new methods for the measurement of molecular magnetic moments.’

In 1944 the prize for 1943 is awarded to Stern, the one for 1944 to Rabi.

13. January 1945. Einstein sends the following telegram: ‘Nominate Wolf-
gang Pauli for physics prize stop his contributions to modern quantum theory
consisting in so-called Pauli or exclusion principle became fundamental part of
modern quantum physics being independent from the other basic axioms of that
theory stop Albert Einstein.’

In 1945 Pauli receives the physics prize ‘for the discovery of the exclusion prin-
ciple, also called the Pauli principle.’

14. November 18, 1947. Einstein writes to Guy von Dardel, ‘I would find it
quite justified that Raoul Wallenberg should receive the Nobel prize [for peace]
and I am gladly permitting you to mention this expression of my opinion to any
person.’* On December 10, 1947, three members of the Swedish Riksdag formally
propose Wallenberg to the Storting.

In 1944 Wallenberg, born in 1912 in Stockholm, was appointed third secretary
to the Swedish legation in Budapest, with the task of organizing a large-scale
action of relief from Nazi terror. He and his staff managed to bring about 20 000
people under the direct protection of the Swedish legation. His name soon became
legendary. Several times the Nazis unsuccessfully tried to entrap and kill him.
Early in 1945 Wallenberg fell into the hands of the Soviet army, which was occu-
pying Budapest. He vanished. It is certain that at the turn of 1946-7 he was in
cell No. 151 of the Lubianka prison in Moscow. It is believed by some that he
may still be alive today. In 1947 Einstein wrote to Stalin, ‘As an old Jew, I appeal
to you to find and send back to his country Raoul Wallenberg . . .(who), risking

*\ learned much about this case from Wallenberg’s half-brother, my friend Guy von Dardel, and
from a paper on Wallenberg by G B Freed, from which I have quoted liberally (Flj.

518

APPENDICES

his own life, worked to rescue thousands of my unhappy Jewish people’ [E3]. In
reply, an underling stated that he had been authorized by Stalin to say that a
search for Wallenberg had been unsuccessful [Tl].

15, March 5, 1951, Einstein writes to Dr Alvin Johnson, president emeritus
of The New School for Social Research in New York City. The letter appears to
be in response to an earlier letter by Johnson concerning the possibility of a Nobel
prize for literature for Hermann Broch. Einstein writes that he has no insight and
understanding concerning modern literature. However, from having read parts of
Broch’s oeuvre, ‘I believe that it would probably be quite justified’ to propse
Broch.

(Broch was born in Vienna in 1886. He emigrated to the United States in 1938.
He and Einstein became friends soon thereafter. Einstein had read his main book,
The Death of Virgil, and admired it [Bl]. Broch died in New Haven in 1951.)

16, Sometime in 1951, Einstein propses Friedrich Wilhelm Forster for the
pace prize: ‘It might be difficult to find pople who have actually been successful
in their efforts to secure pace.’ Nevertheless, he adds, Forster belongs to the group
of leading prsonalities who have worked solidly with great dedication for this
cause, especially by expsing the dangers of ‘Prussian-German militarism’ by his
writings, first in Germany, then in Switzerland, and finally in the United States.

Forster, a major figure in pdagogy, was a lifelong oppnent of German mili-
tarism, which he attacked in numerous books, thereby incurring the hostility of
Germany’s ruling groups from the Second and Third Reichs. In 1895 he was
imprisoned for three months on charges of libel against the Kaiser and in 1926
was called a traitor when he published accounts of secret rearmament efforts in
Germany. He came to the United States in 1940 and became a citizen. He died
in 1966 in a sanitarium near Zurich. For more on Forster, see [F2] and [N4).

17, January 12, 1954, Einstein writes in supprt of a propsal by von Laue
to award the physics prize to Bothe. In his letter, Einstein refers to the Bothe-
Geiger expriment as Bothe’s principal contribution.

In 1954 Bothe and Born share the physics prize.

18, March 3, 1954, By telegram, Einstein sends his last propsal: ‘I have the
honor of recommending for your consideration for the forthcoming award of the
Nobel pace prize the international organization known as Youth Alijah, through
which children from 72 countries have been rescued and rehabilitated in Israel.’

The pace prize for 1954 is awarded to the office of the U.N. high commissioner
for refugees.

It has recently come to my notice that on 19 December 1925 Einstein wrote to
Stockholm propsing A. H. Compton.

References

Bl. H. Broch, The Death of Virgil. Grosset and Dunlop, New York, 1965.

El. A. Einstein and S. Freud, Why War? First published in German in 1933; English
translation by Institute of Intellectual Coopration, League of Nations, Paris, 1933.

EINSTEIN’S PROPOSALS FOR THE NOBEL PRIZE

519

E2. , letter to A. Bachrach, July 25, 1949.

E3. , letter to J. Stalin, November 17, 1947.

FI. G. B. Freed, Papers of the Michigan Ac. Sci. Arts and Letters 46, 503 (1961).

F2. F. W. Fdrster, Erlebte Weltgeschichte. Clock und Lutz, Niirnberg, 1953.

Gl. K. R. Grossmann, Ossietzky. Kindler Verlag, Munich, 1963.

Jl. E. Jones, The Life and Work of Sigmund Freud, Vol. 3. Basic Books, New York,
1957.

Nl. O. Nathan and H. Norden, Einstein on Peace, p. 41. Simon and Schuster, New
York, 1960.

N2. and ,[Nl],p. 162.

N3. and , [Nl], p. 266.

N4. New York Times, January 22, 1966.

PI. M. Planck, AdP 553 (1901). Reprinted in M. Planck, Physikalische Abhan-
dlungen und Vortrdge (PAV) (M von Laue, Ed ), Vol. I, p. 717. Vieweg, Braun-
schweig, 1958.

P2. , AdP^i, 564 (1901); PAV, Vol I, p. 728.

Tl. S. K. Tsarapkin, letter to A. Einstein, December 18, 1947.

An Einstein Chronology

1876 August 8 Hermann Einstein (b. 1847) and Pauline Koch (b. 1852) are
married in Cannstatt

1879 March 14, 1 1 30 a m Albert, their first child, is born m the fanstein resi-
dence, Bahnhofstrasse 135, Ulm.

1880 June 21. The Einsteins register as residents of Munich

1881 November 18. E.’s sister Maria (Maja) is born

^1884* The first miracle: E ’s enchantment with a pocket campass First instruction,
by a private teacher

'^1885 E. starts taking violin lessons (and continues to do so to age thirteen).

^1886 E. attends public school in Munich. In order to comply with legal require-
ments for religious instruction, he is taught the elements of Judaism at
home.

1888 E enters the Luitpold Gymnasium.** The religious education (ontinues, at
school this time, where Oberlchrer Heinrich Friedmann instructs E. until
he is prepared for the bar mitzvah.

1889 First encounter with Max I'almud (who later changed his name to Tal-
mey), then a 21 -year-old medical student, who introduces E. to Bernstein’s
Popular Books on Physical Science, Buchner’s Force and Matter, Kant’s
Kritik der reinen Vernunft, and other Ixxiks. Talmud becomes a regular
visitor to the Einstein home until 1894 During this period, he and E,. dis-
cuss scientific and philosophical topics

'^1890 E.’s religious phase, lasting about one year.

^1891 The second miracle: E. reads the ‘holy geometry book ’

'^1891-5 E. familiarizes himself with the elements of higher mathematics, including
differential and integral calculus.

*Thc symbol ~ means that the date is accurate to within one year

**TTii5 school, situated at Mullerstrasse 33, was destroyed during the Second World War. It was
rebuilt at another location and renamed Albert Einstein Gymnasium.

AN EINSTEIN CHRONOLOGY

521

1892 No bar mitzvah for E.

1894 The family moves to Italy, first to Milan, then to Pavia, then back to Milan.
E. stays in Munich in order to finish school.

1894 or 95* E. sends an essay entitled ‘An investigation of the state of the aether in a
magnetic field’ to his uncle Caesar Koch in Belgium.

1895 Spring. E. leaves the Luitpold Gymnasium without completing his school-
ing. He rejoins his family in Pavia.

Fall. E. fails entrance examination for the ETH,** although he does very
well in mathematics and physics.

October 28-early fall 1896. E. attends the Gewerbeabteilung of the can-
tonal school in Aarau. He lives m the home of ‘Papa’ Jost Winteler, one of
his teachers In this period, he writes a French essay, ‘Mes projets d’avenir.’

1896 January 28. Upon payment of three mark, E. receives a document which
certifies that he is no longer a German (more precisely, a VViirttemberger)
citizen. He remains stateless for the next five years

Fall. E. obtains his diploma from Aarau, f which entitles him to enroll at
the ETH. He takes up residence in Zurich on October 29. Among his fellow
students are Marcel Grossmann and Mileva Marie (or Marity). He starts
his studies for the diploma, which will entitle him to teach in high schools.

'^1897 E.’s meeting in Zurich with Michele Angelo Besso marks the beginning of
a lifelong friendship.

1899 October 19 E. makes formal application for Swiss citizenship.

1900 July 27. A board of examiners requests that the diploma be granted to,
among others, the candidates Grossmann and Einstein. The request is
granted on July 28. E.’s marks are 5 for theoretical physics, experimental
physics, astronomy, 5.5 for theory of functions; 4.5 for a diploma paper (out
of a maximum 6).

Fall. E. is unsuccessful in his efforts to obtain a position as assistant at
the ETH.

December 13. From Zurich, E. sends his first paper to the Annalen der
Physik.

1901 February 21. E. becomes a Swiss citizen. On March 13 he is declared unfit
for Swiss military service because of flat feet and varicose veins.

March-April. Seeking employment, E. applies without success to
Ostwald in Leipzig and to Kamerlingh Onnes in Leiden.

May 17. E. gives notice of departure from Zurich.

May 19- July 15. Temporary teaching position in mathematics at the
technical high school in Winterthur, where E. stays until October 14.

•So daicd by Einstein in 1950.

••ETH - Eidgenosiiichc Technischc Hochschulc, The Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich.

f His final grades welt 6 for history, algebra, geometry, descriptive geometry, physics, 5 for German,
Italian, chemistry, natural history, 4 for geography, drawing (art), drawing (technical), out 0
maximum 6.

522

APPENDICES

October 20- January 1902. Temporary teaching position in

SchafThausen.

December 18. E. applies for a position at the patent office in Bern.

1902 February 21. E. arrives in Bern. At first his only means of support are a
small allowance from the family and fees from tutoring in mathematics and
physics.

June 16. The Swiss federal council appoints E. on a trial basis as tech-
nical expert third class at the patent office in Bern, at an annual salary of
SF 3500. E. starts work there on June 23.

October 10. E.’s father dies in Milan.

1903 January 6. E. marries Mileva Marie.

Conrad Habicht, Maurice Solovine, and E. found the ‘Akademie Olympia.’

December 5. E. presents a paper, Theory of Electromagnetic Waves,’
before the Naturforschende Gesellschaft in Bern.

1904 May 14. Birth of E.’s first son, Hans Albert (d. 1973 in Berkeley,
California).

September 16. The trial appointment at the patent office is changed to a
permanent appointment.

1905 March 17. E. completes the paper on the light-quantum hypothesis.

April 30. E. completes his PhD thesis, ‘On a new determination of molec-
ular dimensions.’ The thesis, printed in Bern and submitted to the Univer-
sity of Zurich, is accepted in July. It is dedicated to ‘meinem Freunde Herrn
Dr M. Grossmann.’

May 11. The paper on Brownian motion is received.*

June 30. The first paper on special relativity is received.*

September 27. The second paper on special relativity theory is received.*
It contains the relation E = mc^.

December 19. A second paper on Brownian motion is received *

1906 April 1. E. is promoted to technical expert second class. His salary is raised
to SF 4500/annum.

November. E. completes a paper on the specific heats of solids, the first
paper ever written on the quantum theory of the solid state.

1907 ‘The happiest thought of my life’: E. discovers the principle of equivalence
for uniformly accelerated mechanical systems. He extends the principle to
electromagnetic phenomena, gives the correct expression for the red shift,
and notes that this extension also leads to a bending of light which passes a
massive body, but believes that this last effect is too small to be detectable.

June 17. E. applies for a position as Privatdozent at the University of
Bern. The application is rejected since it is not accompanied by the obliga-
tory Habilitationsschrift.

1908 February 28. Upon second application, E. is admitted at Bern as Privatdo-
zent. His unpublished Habilitationsschrift is entitled ‘Consequences for the
constitution of radiation following from the energy distribution law of black
bodies.’

By the Annalen der Phystk.

an EINSTEIN CHRONOLOGY

523

Early in the year, J J. Laub becomes E.’s first scientific collaborator.
They publish two joint papers.

December 21. Maja receives the PhD degree in Romance languages
magna cum laude from the University of Bern.

1 909 March and October. E. completes two papers, each of which contains a con-
jecture on the theory of blackbody radiation. In modern terms, these two
conjectures are complementarity, and the correspondence principle. The
October paper is presented at a conference in Salzburg, the first physics
conference E. attended.

July 6. E. submits his resignation (effective October 15) to the patent
office. He also resigns from his Privatdozent position.

July 8. E. receives his first doctorate honoris causa, at the University of
Geneva.*

October 15. E. starts work as associate professor at the University of
Zurich with a beginning salary of SF 4500/annum.

1910 March. Maja marries Paul Wintcler, son of Jost Winteler.

July 28. Birth of E.’s second son, Eduard (Tede’ or Tedel,’ d. 1965 in
psychiatric hospital Burgholzli).

October. E. completes a paper on critical opalescence, his last major work
in classical statistical physics.

1911 Emperor Franz Joseph signs a decree appointing E. full professor at the
Karl-Ferdinand University in Prague, effective April 1.

March. E. moves to Prague.

June. E. recognizes that the bending of light should be experimentally
detectable during a total solar eclipse. He predicts an effect of 0^.83 for the
deflection of a light ray passing the sun (half the correct answer).

October 30- November 3: the first Solvay Conference. E. gives the in-
cluding address. The Current Status of the Problem of Specific Heats.’

1912 Early February. E. is appointed professor at the ETH.

August. E. moves back to Zurich.

1912-13 E. collaborates with Grossmann (now professor of mathematics at the
ETH) on the foundations of the general theory of relativity Gravitation is
described for the first time by the metric tensor. They believe that they have
shown that the equations of the gravitational field cannot be generally
covariant.

1913 Spring. Planck and Nernst visit E. in Zurich to sound him out about coming
to Berlin. The offer consists of a research position under the aegis of the
Prussian Academy of Sciences, a professorship without teaching o^ligati^s
at the University of Berlin, and the directorship of the (yet to be established)

Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Physics.

June 12. Planck, Nernst, Rubens, and Warburg formally propose E. tor
membership in the Prussian Academy in Berlin.

•In later years, Einstein also received honorary degrees ftotn "I / „ Jj’

Buenos Aires, the Sorbonne, London, Oxford, Cambridge, Glasgow, Leris Mancheste . Harvard,
Princeton, New York Stale at Albany, and Yeshiva. This list is most probably tncomplete.

APPENDICES

July 3. This proposal is accepted by a vole of twenty-one to one (and
approved by Emperor Wilhelm II on November 12).

December 7. E. accepts the position in Berlin.

1914 April 6. E. moves to Berlin with wife and children. Soon after, the Einsteins
separate. Mileva and the boys return to Zurich. Albert moves into a bach-
elor apartment at Wittelsbacherstrasse 1 3.

April 26. E.’s first newspaper article appears, in Die Vossische Zeitung,
a Berlin daily. It deals with relativity theory.

July 2. E. gives his inaugural address at the Prussian Academy.

August 1. Outbreak of World War I.

1915 Early in the year. E. holds a visiting appointment at the Physikalisch
Technische Reichsanstalt in Berlin, where he and de Haas perform gyro-
magnetic experiments.

E. cosigns a ‘Manifesto to Europeans’ in which all those who cherish the
culture of Europe are urged to join in a League of Europeans, probably the
first political document to which he lends his name.

Late June-early July. E. gives six lectures in Goettingen on general rel-
ativity theory. ‘To my great joy, 1 completely succeeded in convincing Hil-
bert and [Felix] Klein.’

November 4. E. returns to the requirement of general covariance in gen-
eral relativity, constrained, however, by the condition that only unimodular
transformations are allowed.

November 1 1. E. replaces the unimodular constraint by the even stronger
one that (— det^^)/4 = 1.

November 18. The first post- New Ionian results. E. obtains 43” per cen-
tury for the precession of the perihelion of Mercury. He also finds that the
bending of light is twice as large as he thought it was in 1911.

November 20. David Hilbert submits a paper to the Goettingen Gesell-
schaft der Wissenschaften containing the final form of the gravitational field
equations (along with an unnecessary assumption on the structure of the
energy- momentum tensor).

November 25. Completion of the logical structure of general relativity. E
finds that he can and should dispense with the constraints introduced on
November 4 and 11.

1916 March 20. ‘Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativiiatstheorie,’ the first
systematic expose of general relativity is received by the Annalen der Physik
and later, in 1916, published as E.’s first book.

May 5. E. succeeds Planck as president of the Deutsche Physikalische
Gcscllschaft.

June. E.’s first paper on gravitational waves. He discovers that (in mod-
ern language) a graviton has only two stales of polarization.

July. E. returns to the quantum theory. During the next eight months,
he publishes three overlapping papers on the subject, containing the coeffi-
cients of spontaneous and induced emission and absorption, a new derivation
of Planck’s law, and the first statement in print by E. that a light-quantum
with energy hv carries a momentum hv/c. First discomfort about ‘chance’
in quantum physics.

an EINSTEIN CHRONOLOGY

525

December. E. completes Ober die Spezielle and die Allgemeine Relativi-
tdtstheorie, Gememverstdndlich, his most widely known book. It is later
translated into many languages.

December. The emperor authorizes the appointment of E. to the board
of governors of the Physikalisch Technische Reichsanstalt. E. holds this
position from 1917 until 1933.

1917 February. E. writes his first paper on cosmology and introduces the cos-
mological term.

E. sulTers successively from a liver ailment, a stomach ulcer, jaundice, and
general weakness. His cousin Elsa takes care of him. He does not fully
recover until 1920.

October 1. The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute begins its activities (both exper-
imental and theoretical) under E.’s directorship.

1918 February. E.’s second paper on gravitational waves It contains the quad-
rupole formula.

November. E. declines a joint oflfer from the University of Zurich and the
ETH.

1919 January- June E spends most of this period in Zurich, where he gives a
series of lectures at the university.

February 14. E and Mileva are divorced

May 29 A total solar eclipse affords opportunities for measuring the
bending of light. This is done under Eddington on the island of Principe and
under Crommelin in northern Brazil.

June 2. E. marries his divorced cousin Elsa Einstein Lowenihal* (b.
1874). Her two daughters, Use (b 1897) and Margot (b. 1899), had earlier
taken the name Einstein by legal decree. The family moves into an apart-
ment on Haberlandstrasse 5.

September 22. E receives a telegram from Lorentz informing him that
preliminary analysis of the May eclipse data indicates that the bending of
light lies between the ‘Newton’ value {0'^.86) and the ‘Einstein’ value
(r73).

November 6 At a joint meeting of the Royal Society and the Royal Ast.^o-
nomical Society in London, it is announced that the May observations con-
firm Einstein’s predictions

November 7. Headlines in the London Times, ‘Revolution in science/
New theory of the Universe/Newionian ideas overthrown’.

November 10 Headlines in The New York Times: ‘Lights all askew in
the heavens/Einstein theory triumphs.’ Press announcements such as these
mark the beginning of the perception by the general public of Einstein as a
world figure.

December. Einstein receives his only German honorary degree: doctor of
medicine at the University of Rostock.

Discussions about Zionism with Kurt Blumenfeld.

“Elsa’s father was Rudolf E., a cousin of E.’s father, Hermann Her mother was nee Fanny Koch,
a sister of E.’s mother, Pauline, so that Elsa was a cousin of E. from both his parents’ sides.

526

APPENDICES

1920 February 12. Disturbances occur during a lecture given by E. at the Uni-
versity of Berlin. E. states in the press that expressions of anti-Semitism as
such did not occur although the disturbances could be so interpreted.

March. E.*s mother dies in E.’s home.

June. E. lectures in Norway and Denmark.

E. and Bohr meet for the first time, in Berlin.

August 24. Mass meeting against general relativity theory in Berlin. E.
attends the meeting.

August 27. E. publishes a bitter retort in the Berliner Tageblatt. German
newspapers report that E. plans to leave Germany. Lauc, Nernst, and Rub-
ens, as well as the minister of culture Konrad Haenisch, express their soli-
darity with E. in statements to the press.

September 8. In a letter to Haenisch, E. states that Berlin is the place
with which he feels most closely connected by human and scientific relations.
He adds that he would only respond to a call from abroad if external cir-
cumstances forced him to do so.

September 23. Confrontation with Philipp Lenard at the Bad Nauheim
meeting.

October 27. E. gives an inaugural address in Leiden as a special visiting
professor. This position will bring him there a few weeks per year.*

From 1920 on, E. begins to publish nonscicntific articles.

December 31. E. is elected to the Ordre pour le Merite.

1921 April 2 -May 30. First visit to the United States, with Chaim Weizmann,
for the purpose of raising funds for the planned Hebrew University in
Jerusalem. At Columbia University, E. receives the Barnard medal. He is
received at the White House by President Harding. Visits to Chicago, Bos-
ton, and Princeton, where he gives four lectures on relativity theory.

On his return trip, E. stops in London, where he visits Newton’s tomb.

1922 January. E. completes his first paper on unified field theory.

March-April. E.’s visit to Paris contributes to the normalization of
Franco-German relations.

E. accepts an invitation to membership of the League of Nations’ Com-
mittee on Intellectual Cooperation (CIC), four years before Germany’s
admission to the League.

June 24. Assassination of Walther Rathenau, German Foreign Minister,
an acquaintance of E.’s.

October 8. E. and Elsa board the S.S. Kitano Maru in Marseille, bound
for Japan. On the way, they visit Colombo, Singapore, Hong Kong, and
Shanghai.

November 9. The Nobel prize for physics for 1921 is awarded to E. while
he is en route to Japan.

November 17- December 29. E. visits Japan.

December 10. At the Nobel prize festivities E. is represented by the Ger-

* Einstein again visited Leiden in November 1921, May 1922, May 1923, October 1924, February
1925, and April 1930. His visiting professorship was officially terminated on September 23, 1952.

an EINSTEIN CHRONOLCXJY

527

man envoy, Rudolf Nadolny.* His citation reads, ‘To A. E. for his services
to theoretical physics and especially for his discovery of the law of the pho-
toelectric effect.’

1923 February 2. On his way back from Japan, E. arrives in Palestine for a
twelve-day visit. On February 8 he is named the first honorary citizen of
Tel Aviv. On his way from Palestine to Germany, he visits Spain.

March. Disillusioned with the effectiveness but not with the purposes of
the League of Nations, E. resigns from the CIC.

June- July. E. helps found the Association of Friends of the New Russia
and becomes a member of its executive committee.**

July. E. gives a lecture on relativity in Goteborg in acknowledgment of
his Nobel prize.

The discovery of the Compton effect ends the long-standing resistance to
the photon concept.

December. For the first time in a scientific article, E. presents his conjec-
ture that quantum effects may arise from overconstrained general relativistic
field equations.

1924 As an act of solidarity, E. joins the Berlin Jewish community as a dues-
paying member.

E. edits the first collection of scientific papers of the Physics Department
of the Hebrew University.

The ‘Einstein-Instituie’ in Potsdam, housed in the ‘Einstein-Tower,’
starts its activities. Its main instrument is the ‘Einstein-Telescope.’

Use E. marries Rudolf Kayser.

June. E. reconsiders and rejoins the CIC.

June 7. E. stales that he does not object to the opinion of the German
Ministry of Culture that his appointment to the Prussian Academy implies
that he has acquired Prussian citizenship. (He retains his Swiss citizenship.)

December. E.’s last major discovery: from the analysis of statistical fluc-
tuations he arrives at an independent argument for the association of waves
with matter. Bosc-E. condensation is also discovered by him at that time.

1925 May- June. Journey to South America. Visits to Buenos Aires, Rio de
Janeiro, and Montevideo.

E. signs (with Gandhi and others) a manifesto against obligatory military
service.

E. receives the Copley medal.

E. serves on the Board of Governors of the Hebrew University (until June
1928).

1926 E. receives the gold medal of the Royal Astronomical Society

1927 May 7. Hans Albert E. marries Frida Knecht in Dortmund.

October. The fifth Solvay Conference. Beginning of the dialogue between
E. and Bohr on the foundations of quantum mechanics.

*Thc prize was brought to E.’s home by the Swedish Ambassador after E. returned from Japan.

**E. never visited the Soviet Union. The association was disbanded in 1933.

528

APPENDICES

1928 February or March. E. suffers a temporary physical collapse brought about
by physical overexertion. An enlargement of the heart is diagnosed. He has
to stay in bed for four months and must keep a salt-free diet. He fully recu-
perates but remains weak for almost a year.

Friday, the thirteenth of April. Helen Dukas starts to work for E.

1929 First visit with the Belgian royal family. Friendship with Queen Elizabeth,
with whom he corresponds until the end of his life.

June 28. Planck receives the first, E. the second Planck medal. On this
occasion E. declares that he is ‘ashamed’ to receive such a high honor since
all he has contributed to quantum physics are ‘occasional insights’ which
arose in the course of ‘fruitless struggles with the main problem ’

1930 Birth of Bernhard Caesar (‘Hardi’), son of Hans Albert and Frida E., E.’s
first grandchild.*

May. E. signs the manifesto for world disarmament of the Women’s
International League for Peace and Freedom.

November 29. Margot E. marries Dimitri Marianoff. (This marriage
ended in divorce.)

December 11 -March 4, 1931 E.’s second stay in the United States,
mainly at CalTech.

December 13. Mayor Jimmy Walker presents the key to the city of New
York to E.

December 19-20. E. visits Cuba.

1931 April. E. rejects the cosmological term as unnecessary and unjustified.

December 30-March 4, 1932. E.’s third stay in the United States, again
mainly at CalTech.

1932 February. From Pasadena E. protests against the conviction for treason of
the German pacifist Carl von Ossietzky.

April. E. resigns for good from the CIC.

October. E. is appointed to a professorship at The Institute for Advanced
Study in Princeton, New Jersey. The original intent is that he divide his
time about evenly between Princeton and Berlin.

December 10. E. and his wife depart from Germany for the United
States. This stay was again planned to be a visit However, they never set
foot in Germany again.

1933 January 30. The Nazis come to power.

March 20. In his absence, Nazis raid E.’s summer home in Caputh to
look for weapons allegedly hidden there by the Communist party.

March 28. On his return to Europe, E sends his resignation to the Prus-
sian Academy. He and his wife settle temporarily in the villa Savoyarde in
Lc Coq sur Mer, on the Belgian coast, where two Belgian security guards
are assigned to them for protection. They arc joined by Use, Margot, Helen
Dukas, and Walther Mayer, E.’s assistant. During the next few months, E.
makes brief trips to England and also to Switzerland, where he sees his son
Etduard for the last time. Rudolf Kayscr sees to it that E.’s pap>ers in Berlin
arc saved and arc sent to the Quai d’Orsay by French diplomatic pouch.

*A second grandson died at age six. By adoption, E. also had a granddaughter named Evelyn.

an EINSTEIN CHRONOLOGY

529

April 21. E. resigns from the Bavarian Academy of Sciences.

An exchange of letters between E, and Freud is published as a slim vol-
ume entitled Why War?

June 10. E. gives the Herbert Spencer lecture in Oxford.

September 9. E. leaves the European continent for good and goes to
England.

October 17. Carrying visitors visas, E., his wife, Helen Dukas, and
Mayer arrive in the United States and proceed to Princeton that same day.
A few days later the first three move to 2 Library Place.

Use and Margot stay in Europe.

1934 Death of Use Kayser- Einstein in Paris Soon thereafter, Margot and her
husband join the family in Princeton.

1935 May. E. makes a brief trip to Bermuda. From there he makes formal appli-
cation for permanent residency in the United States It is the last time that
he leaves the United States

Autumn. The family and Helen Dukas move to 112 Mercer Street in
Princeton.

E. receives the Franklin medal

1936 September 7. Death of Marcel Grossmann.

December 20. Death of Elsa E.

Hans Albert E. receives a Ph.D in Technical Sciences from the ETH.

1939 Maja Joins her brother at Mercer Street, which remains her home for the
rest of her life.

August 2. E. sends a letter to F. D. Roosevelt in which he draws the lat-
ter’s attention to the military implications of atomic energy.

1940 October 1. In Trenton, Judge Phillip Forman inducts Margot, Helen
Dukas, and E. as citizens of the United States. E. also retains his Swiss
citizenship.

1943 May 31. E. signs a consultant’s contract (eventually extended until June 30,
1946) with the Research and Development Division of the U.S. Navy
Bureau of Ordnance, section Ammunition and Explosives, subsection ‘High
Explosives and Propellants ’ His consultant’s fee is $25 per day.

1944 A copy of E.’s 1905 paper on special relativity, handwritten by him for this
purpose, is auctioned for six million dollars in Kansas City, as a contribution
to the war effort (manuscript now in Library of Congress).

1945 December 10. E. delivers an address in New York, ‘The War is Won but
Peace is Not.’

1 946 Maja has a stroke and remains bedridden.

E. agrees to serve as chairman of the Emergency Committee for Atomic
Scientists.

October. E. writes an open letter to the general assembly of the United
Nations, urging the formation of a world government.

1947 Hans Albert E. is appointed professor of engineering at the University of
California, Berkeley.

1948 August 4. Death of Mileva in Zurich.

December. An exploratory laparotomy on E. discloses a large intact aneu-
rysm of the abdominal aorta.

530

APPENDICES

1949 January 13. E. leaves the hospital.

Publication of the ‘necrology,’ written by E., a largely scientific review
entitled Autobiographtsches,

1950 March 18. E. signs and seals his last will and testament. Dr Otto Nathan
is named as sole executor. Dr Nathan and Helen Dukas are named jointly
as trustees of his estate. The Hebrew University is named as the ultimate
repository of his letters and manuscripts. Among other stipulations, his
violin is bequeathed to his grandson Bernhard Caesar.

1951 June. Death of Maja in Princeton.

1952 July. Death of Paul Winteler at the home of his brother-in-law, Besso, in
Geneva.

November. E. is offered and declines the presidency of Israel.

1954 April 14. The press carries a statement of support by E. for J. R. Oppen-
heimer on the occasion of allegations brought against the latter by the U.S.
Government.

Last meeting of E. and Bohr (in Princeton).

E. develops hemolytic anaemia.

1955 March 15. Death of Besso.

April 11. E.’s last signed letter (to Bertrand Russell), in which he agrees
to sign a manifesto urging all nations to renounce nuclear weapons That
same week, E. writes his final phrase, in an unfinished manuscript ‘Political
passions, aroused everywhere, demand their victims.’

April 13. Rupture of the aortic aneurysm.

April 15. E. enters Princeton Hospital.

April 16. Hans Albert E. arrives in Princeton from Berkeley.

April 17. E. telephones Helen Dukas; he wants writing material and the
sheets with his most recent calculations.

April 18, 1:15 a.m. E. dies. The body is cremated in Trenton at 4 p.m.
that same day. The ashes are scattered* at an undisclosed place.

November 21. Thomas Martin, son of Bernhard Caesar, son of Hans
Albert, is born in Bern, the first of the great-grandchildren of Albert
Einstein.

*By Otto Nathan and Paul Oppenheim.

Name Index

Note: An asterisk (*) after a name indicates that
it receives a fuller treatment in the Subject Index.

Abraham, Max (1875-1922), 155-157, 159,
204,211,229-232, 234, 235
Adler, Friedrich (1879-1960), 11
Allen, Woody (1935- ), 18

Ampere, Andre-Marie (1775-1836), 246
Arago, Dominique Francois Jean (1786-
1853), 118,318
Arons, Leo (1860-1919), 318
Arrhenius, Svante (1859-1927), 504, 508, 510
Aurivillius, Christopher (1853-1928), 503, 510
Avenarius, Richard (1843-1898), 318
Avogadro, Amedeo (1776-1856), 81

Bach, Johann Sebastian (1685-1750), 16
Bacher, Robert (1905- ), 475

Balmer, Johann Jakob (1825-1898), 361
Balzac, Honorc dc (1799-1850), 16
Bamberger, Edgar (1883-1952), 452
Bargmann, Valentin (1908- ), 147, 152,

275, 334, 335, 347, 451, 463, 466, 467,
496

Barkla, Charles Glover (1877-1944), 506
Barnett, Samuel Jackson (1873-1956), 246,
248, 249

Bateman, Harry (1882-1946), 435
Becquercl, Jean (1878-1953), 163
Beethoven, Ludwig von (1770-1827), 16, 38,
183

Ben Gurion, David (1886-1973), 1 1, 315
Bergmann, Peter Gabriel (1915- ), 268,

334-336, 341, 347, 496
Bergson, Henri (1859-1941), 12, 28, 163, 510
Berlin, Isaiah (1909- ), 13

Berliner, Arnold (1862-1942), 318
Bernoulli, Daniel (1700-1782), 82
Bernstein, Aaron (1812-1884), 520
Besso, Michele Angelo (1873-1955), 41, 48,
114, 139, 164, 173, 185, 189, 201, 210,
257, 282, 299-301, 303, 405, 41 1 , 452,
467. 473, 477, 483, 485, 521, 530
Beihe, Hans (1906- ), 475, 491

Bianchi, Luigi (1856-1928), 276

Bloom, Harold (1930- ), 170

Blumenfeld, Kurt (1884-1963), 315, 476, 525
Bohr,* Niels Henrik David (1885-1962), 6-8,
15, 20, 24, 28, 144, 190, 247, 326, 360-
363, 384, 385, 414, 416-421, 425, 441-
448, 454-456, 462, 505, 506, 508, 510,
511,526, 530

Bois, Henri du, (1863-1918), 245, 487
Boltzmann*, Ludwig (1844-1906), 19, 44, 55,
56, 59-68, 72-74, 82, 83, 100, 365, 368,
371, 377, 392-394, 424, 426, 430, 488
Bork, Alfred (1926- ), 121

Bom*, Max (1882-1970), 141, 167, 168, 172,
214-216, 232, 302, 306, 316, 397, 405,
412, 420, 421, 442, 443, 460, 461, 464,
467,515,518

Bose*, Satyendra Nath (1894-1974), 59, 361,
377, 423-431,435, 438,441
Bolhe, Walther (1891-1957), 421, 435, 518
Boyd, Julian (1903-1980), 147
Bragg, William Henry (1862-1942), 505
Bragg, William Laurence (1890-1971), 505
Braginsky, Vladimir, 217, 278, 279
Brahms, Johannes (1833-1897), 16
Braun, Ferdinand (1850-1918), 505
Brecht, Bertolt (1898-1956), 16
Briand, Aristide (1862-1932), 320
Brill, Alfred (1885-1949), 154, 318
Brillouin, Lhn (1889-1969), 435
Brillouin, Marcel (1854-1948), 505, 510
Broch, Hermann (1886-1951), 16, 513, 518
Broglie, Louis de (1892- ), 20, 357, 361,

421,435-439, 444,515,516
Broglie, Maurice de (1875-1960), 435
Brown, Herbert Runham (1879-1949), 12,

516

Brown, Robert (1773-1858), 86, 93
Brunschvieg, Leon (1869-1944), 163
Brush, Stephen (1935- ), 121

Bucherer, Alfred (1863-1927), 159
Buchner, Friedrich (1824-1899), 520
Bucky, Gustav (1880-1963), 477, 483, 495

53 *

532

NAME INDEX

Bunsen, Robert (1811-1899), 361
Burkhardt, Heinrich (1861-1914), 89

Canizzaro, Stanislao (1826-1910), 80, 81
Cantoni, Giovanni (1818-1897), 93
Carbonelle, Ignace (1829-1889), 93
Carnot, Sadi (1796-1832), 60
Cartan, Elie (1869-1951), 163, 224, 340. 344,
345

Casimir, Hendrik (1909- ), 449

Cauchy, Augustin-Louis (1789-1857), 119
Cervantes, Miguel de (1547-1616), 47
Chadwick, James (1891-1974), 327, 360
Chaplin, Charles Spencer (1889-1977), 301
Chern, Shiing-Shen (1911- ), 336-337

Choquet-Bruhat, Yvonne, 291
Christoffel, Elwin Bruno (1829-1900), 217
Churchill, Winston (1874-1965), 320
Chwolson, Orest Daniilovich (1852-1934),

505, 507

Clausius, Rudolf Julius Emmanuel (1822-
1888), 60,61,82, 84, 185
Clemencc, Gerald Maurice (1908-1974), 7
Cohn, Emil (1854-1944), 120, 121, 164
Compton, Arthur (1892-1962), 413, 414, 421,
435,514,518

Condon, Edward (1902-1974), 475
Confucius (551-479B.C.), 319
Copernicus, Nicholas (1473-1543), 192, 308,

506, 507

(3orclli, Arcangelo (1653-1713), 16
Croce, Benedetto (1866-1952), 319
Crommelin, Andrew (1865-1939), 177, 304,
305

Curie, Marie (1867-1934), 12, 16, 85, 86, 186,
209, 316-318, 505
Curie, Pierre (1859-1906), 86, 379

Dalen, Nils Gustaf (1869-1937), 505
Dallenbach, Walter (1892- ), 509

Dalton, John (1766-1844), 79-81, 399
Darboux, Jtan-Gaston (1842-1917), 505
Dardel, Guy von, 517

Darwin, Charles Robert (1790-1882), 44, 364,
506, 507

Davisson, Clinton Joseph (1881-1958), 440,
515

Dean, Guy K., 477, 478
Debye, Peter (1884-1966), 27, 397, 405, 413,
414, 435, 438, 439, 505, 514
Dclsaulx, Joseph (1828-1891), 93
Democritus (late fifth century B.C.), 79
Deslandres, Henri (1853-1948), 308
Dewar, James (1842-1923), 392, 396, 398
Dewitt, Bryce (1923- ), 270

Dicke, Robert (1916- ), 217, 234

Dickens, Charles (1812-1870), 16
Dirac, Paul Adrien Maurice (1902- ), 20,

361, 362, 424, 425, 432, 441, 444, 515,
516

Dondcr, Thcophile de (1872-1957), 510
Dostoyevski, Fyodor (1821-1881), 16
Douglass, David (1932- ), 279

Dreyfus, Bertha (1871 -app. 1944), 12
Drostc, Johannes (1886-1963), 291
Drude, Paul (1863-1906), 121
Duane, William (1872-1935), 382, 386
Dukas, Helena (1896-1982), 11, 35, 47-49,
114, 115, 147, 171, 182, 187, 240, 317,
350, 417, 450, 453, 454, 467, 473, 476,
479, 487, 492, 496, 503, 528-530
Dulong, Pierre Louis (1785-1838), 390-392
Dyson, Frank Watson (1868-1939), 177, 304,
305

Eban, Abba (1915- ), 11,476

Eddington, Arthur Stanley (1882-1944), 177,
273, 276, 281, 288, 304-306, 316, 329,
336, 339, 342-344, 346-348, 509
Edison, Thomas Alva (1847-1931), 16, 318
Ehlers, jSrgcn (1929- ), 280, 281, 290,

291

Ehrcnfesi, Paul (1880-1933), 55, 64, 66-68,
88, 151, 154, 159, 193,210,213-215,
223, 240, 241, 245, 249, 252, 261, 271,
272, 280, 281, 285, 299-302, 314, 318,
320, 328, 333, 334, 346, 398, 404, 405,
414, 417, 418, 420, 424, 425, 426, 430,
441, 443, 449, 451, 483, 488, 494, 508
Ehrenfest-Affanasjewa, Tatiana Alexeyevna
(1876-1964), 55, 64, 66-68, 245
Ehrenhaft, Felix (1879-1952), 507, 510
Ehrmann, Rudolf (1879- ), 477

Einstein, Abraham (1808-1868), 35
Einstein, Albert (1879-1955) passxm
Einstein, Bernhard Caesar (1930- ), 453,

476, 528, 530

Einstein, Eduard (1910-1965), 187, 451, 476,
523 528

Einstein,’ Elsa (1876-1936), 10, 300-302, 318,

452, 453, 477, 488, 503, 525, 526
Einstein, Evelyn, 538

Einstein, Frida (nee Knecht) (1895-1958),
451,527, 528

Einstein, Hans Albert (1904-1973), 47, 186,

453, 522, 527-530

Einstein, Hermann (1847-1902), 35, 36, 39,
41,45, 47,300, 520, 525
Einstein, Use (1897-1934), 48, 300, 450, 495,
504, 525, 527-529

Einstein, Jakob (1850-1912), 36, 37, 39, 41
Einstein, Lina (1875-app. 1944), 12

NAME INDEX

533

Einstein, Margot (1899- ), 1 1, 16, 49,

300, 301, 450, 452, 453, 473, 525, 528,
529

Einstein, Maria (Maja) (1881-1951), 35-37,
40, 41, 48, 149, 150, 302, 452, 473, 520,
523, 529, 530

Einstein, Mileva (nee Mari?) (1875-1948), 10,
45, 47, 186, 187, 193, 240, 241, 299-301,
476, 503, 521, 522, 524, 525, 529
Einstein, Pauline (nee Koch) (1858-1920), 35-
38, 47, 300, 302, 520, 525
Einstein, Rudolf, 525

Einstein, Thomas Manin (1955- ), 530

Elizabeth, Queen of the Belgians (1876-1965),
453, 528

Elsasser, Walter (1904- ), 440

Elster, Julius (1854-1920). 379
Emden, Robert (1862-1940), 510
Engels, Friedrich (1820-1895), 12
Edtvos, Roland (1848-1919), 204, 216, 217,
505

Epicurus (341-270 B.C.), 79
Epstein, Paul (1871-1939). 314, 494
Eucken, Arnold (1884-1950), 397, 399
Euclid (fl.c. 295 B.C ). 309
Exner, Felix (1876-1930), 101

Faraday, Michael (1791-1867), 23, 30, 82, 319
Faye, Herve (1814-1902), 254. 364
Feinberg, Gerald (1933- ), 146

Fermi, Enrico (1901-1954), 432
Fiedler, Wilhelm (1832-1912), 486
FitzGerald, George Francis (1851-1901), 116,
120-124, 141

Fizeau, Armand Hippolyte Louis (1819-
1896), 115-119, 123, 127, 139, 145, 150
Flexner, Abraham (1866-1959), 450, 452, 493
Fliickiger, Max, 49
Fock, Vladimir (1898- ), 291, 333

Fokker, Adriaan (1887-1968), 126, 236, 237,
253, 487

Fdppl, August (1854-1924), 44, 132
Forman, Phillip, Judge (1895-1978), 452, 529
Fdrster, Friedrich Wilhelm, (1896-1966), 518
Fra Angelico (c. 1400- 1455), 16
France, Anatole (1844-1924), 16
Frank. Philipp (1884-1966), 49, 140, 193,

302. 319, 357, 495

Franz Joseph, Emperor (1830-1916), 192, 523
Frauenglass, William, 474
Freed, G., 517

Frenkel, Elsa (1888- ? ), 240
Fresnel, Augustin Jean (1788-1827), 111, 118,
119, 123, 124

Freud, Sigmund (1856-1939), 315, 513-515,

529

Freundlich, Erwin (1885-1964), 254 303
304,308,312

Friedmann, Aleksandr Aleksandrovich (1888-
1925), 268, 288
Friedmann, Heinrich, 38, 520
Fiirth, Reinhold, 93, 98

Galilei, Galileo (1564-1642), 29, 319
Gandhi, Mahatma (1868-1936), 16, 474, 527
Gauss, Carl Friedrich (1777-1855), 217
Gay-Lussac, Joseph Louis (1778-1850). 80
81

Gehrcke, Ernst (1878-1960), 508
Geiger, Hans (1882-1945), 402, 421
Geiser, Carl Frederick (1843-1934), 44, 212
Geitel, Hans (1855-1923), 379
Gerlach, Walther (1889-1979), 413, 514
Germer, Lester (1896-1971), 515
Gibbs, Josiah Willard (1844-1906), 19, 55
59, 63. 64, 70, 72, 73
Giotto di Bondone (1276?- 1337), 16
Glaus, Beat (1935- ), 48

Glenn, Frank (1901-1982), 477
Godel, Kurt (1906-1978), 7, 13, 497
Goering, Hermann (1893-1946), 517
Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von (1749-1832),
318, 478

Goldschmidt, Rose Goldie. 490
Goldschmidt, Rudolf (1876-1950), 313, 490-
491

Gonzalez, J. J., 405
Gorki, Maxim (1868-1936), 16
Goudsmit, Samuel (1902-1978), 143, 249, 443,
466

Gouy, Louis Georges (1854-1926), 94, 97, 508
Grommer, Jakob ( ? -1933), 290, 328, 333,
342, 466, 487-488
Grossmann, Elsbeth, 224
Grossmann, Marcel (1878-1936), 22, 41,44,

46, 48, 57, 88, 132, 169, 184, 193, 204,
208, 209, 212, 213, 216-225, 228, 234,
235, 243, 251, 256, 257, 350, 476, 483,
521-523, 529

Groves, Leslie, General (1896-1970), 454
Guillaume, Charles (1861-1938), 506
Gullstrand, Allvar (1862-1930), 505, 509-511
Gustav V. King (1858-1950), 504
Guye, Charles Eugene (1866-1942), 152

Haas, Arthur (1884-1941), 507, 509
Haas, Wander Johannes dc (1878-1960), 245-
249, 253, 487

Haas, Geertruida de (nee Lorentz), 387, 517
Habicht, Conrad (1876-1958), 47, 133, 148,

HabiiM.’^ul 0884-^948), 187, 483-485

534

NAME INDEX

Hadamard, Jacques (1865-1963), 163, 314,

509, 510

Haenisch, Konrad (1876-1925), 526
Hahn, Otto (1879-1968), 475
Haldane, John Scott (1860-1936), 311, 312
Haller, Friedrich (1844-1936), 46-48
Hallwachs, Wilhelm (1859-1922), 380
Harding, Warren, President (1865-1923), 310,
526

Harvey, Thomas Stoltz (1912- ), 477

HarwaH, A. E., 276
Hasenfihrl, Fritz (1874-1915), 148, 200
Havas, Peter (1916- ), 281, 290, 291

Hawking, Stephen William (1942- ), 267,

279, 292

Heaviside, Oliver (1850-1925), 123, 229, 505
Heine, Heinrich (1797-1856), 16, 36
Heisenberg,* Werner (1901-1976), 20, 24,

249, 290, 329, 362, 405, 420, 435, 440-
442, 444, 445, 448, 467, 516
Helm, Georg Ferdinand (1881-1923), 84
Helmholtz, Hermann (1821-1894), 44, 318,

509

Herglotz, Gustav (1881-1953), 215
Hermann, Armin (1933- ), 164, 306, 397

Hemeck, Friedrich (1909- ), 282

Hersey, John (1914- ), 16

Hertz, Gustav (1887- ), 514

Hertz, Heinrich (1857-1894), 44, 119-121,
131,145,278, 319, 368, 379, 380
Hertz, Paul (1881-1940), 67
Herzog, Albin, 186

Hessenberg, Gerhard (1874-1925), 339
Hettner, Gerhard (1892-1968), 368
Hilbert, David (1862-1943), 22, 152, 170,

208, 243, 250, 257-261, 268, 274-276,

280, 358, 524

Hirosige, Tetu (1928-1975), 121
Hitler, Adolf (1889-1945), 314, 450, 517
Hoff, Jacobus Henricus van’t (1852-1911),
85-88, 95

Hoffmann, Banesh (1906- ), 49, 290, 347,

495-496

Hogness, Thorfin (1894-1976). 475
Holton. Gerald (1922- ), 1 19, 282

Hopf, Ludwig (1884-1939), 187, 193, 211,
213,410, 485

Hubble, Edwin Powell (1889-1953), 22, 268,
288

Hughes, Arthur Llewellyn (1883-1978), 381
Hume, David (1711-1776). 47, 133, 318
Hunt, Franklin Livingston, 382, 386
Hurwitz, Adolf (1859-1919), 44

Infcld, Leopold (1893-1968), 290. 347, 466,495
lshiwara,Jun (1881-1947), 118
Israel, Werner (1931- ), 279

Jaffc, Georg (1880-1965), 509
Jammer, Max (1915- ), 457

Jeans, James Hopwood (1877-1946), 177,

374, 375

Johnson, Alvin (1874-1971), 518
Jones, Ernest (1897-1958), 515
Jordon, Pascual (1902-1980), 326, 405, 515
Jost, Res (1918- ), 41, 444, 486

Jouvcnel, Bertrand de (1903- ), 1 1

Julius, Willem (1860-1925), 209, 318, 508
Jung, Carl (1875-1951), 485

Kac, Mark (1914- ), 100

Kahn, Boris (1911-app. 1944), 433
Kaluza, Theodor (1885-1954), 329-334, 342,
344

Kamerlingh Onnes, Heike (1853-1926), 45,
245, 505, 508, 521

Kant, Immanuel (1724-1804), 13, 37, 318,

319, 520

Kapteyn, Jacobus (1851-1922), 494
Karman, Theodore von (1881-1963), 397
Kaufman, Bruria (1918- ), 348, 349, 497

Kaufman, Walter (1871-1947), 154, 156, 157,
159, 165, 166

Keyser, Rudolf (1889-1964), 6. 48, 131, 320,
450, 527, 528

Kazantzakis, Nikos (1885-1957), 16
Keesom, Willem Hendrik (1876-1956), 433
Kekule von Stradonitz, August (1829-1896),

Kelvin, see Thomson, William
Kemeny, John (1926- ), 497

Kepler, Johnannes (1571-1630), 308, 318
Kessler, Harry (1868-1937), 318, 320
Kirchhoff, Gustav Robert (1824-1887), 26, 44,
361, 364-366, 368
Kirsten, Christa, 49

Klein, Felix (1849-1925), 83, 217, 259, 260,
274-276, 278, 325, 344, 347, 358, 397,
524

Klein, Martin (1924- ), 60, 61, 66, 429

Klein. Oskar (1894-1977), 329, 331-334
Kleiner. Alfred (1849-1916), 89, 185, 186, 193
Knudsen, Martin (1871-1949), 59, 505
Koch, Caesar (1854-1941), 130, 521
Koch, Fanny (1852-1926), 302, 525
Koch, Jakob (1850- ? ), 302
Kottler, Friedrich (1886-1965), 228
Kox, Anne (1948- ), 126, 167

Kraichnan, Robert Harry (1928- ), 497

Kramen, Hendrik Anton (1894-1952), 144,
433,441,442

Kretschmann, Erich, 510, 511
Krupp, Gustav (1870-1950), 303
Kruskal, Martin (1925- ). 270

Kunsman, Charles (1890- ), 440

name index

535

Kurlbaum, Ferdinand (1857-1927), 366-368,
374

Kununoglu, Bchram (1922- ), 348

Ladcnburg, Rudolf (1882-1952), 151, 420
Lagcrldf. Selma (1858-1940), 16
Lampa, Anton (1868-1938), 192, 485, 486
Lanczos, Cornelius (1893-1974), 491, 492
Landau, Lev Davidovich (1908-1968), 269,

277

Landc, Alfred (1888-1975), 249
Langevin, Paul (1872-1946), 16, 97, 149, 159,
163, 318, 436, 438, 510, 514
Langley, Samuel Pierpont (1834-1906), 366
Larmor, Joseph (1857-1942), 120, 122, 123,
126, 306

Laub, Johann Jakob (1872-1962), 151, 154,
169, 187-189, 192, 200, 402, 484, 523
Laue, Max von (1879-1960), 145, 150, 151,
165, 200, 211, 232, 233, 239, 357, 383,
456, 475, 489, 503, 505, 507, 508, 510,
518, 526

Lavoisier, Antoine- Laurent (1743-1794),

393

Le Bel, Joseph Achille (1847-1930), 85
Lecat, Maurice, 268
Lehmann, Otto (1855-1922), 505
Leibniz, (Gottfried Wilhelm (1646-1716), 26
Lcnard, Philip (1862-1947), 200, 380, 381,
385, 508, 526
Lenin (1870-1924), 12
LeRoy, Edouard (1870-1954), 163
Lessing, Gotthold Ephraim (1729-1781), 468
Leverricr, Urbain Jean Joseph, see Verrier,
Urbain Jean Joseph Lc
Levi-Civita, Tullio (1873-1941), 212, 216,

217, 224, 225, 244, 268, 278, 291, 340
Lewis, Gilbert (1875-1946), 407
Lieb, Hans (1930- ), 484

Lifshitz, Evgeny Mikhailovitch
(1915- ),277

Lippman, Gabriel Jonas (1845-1921), 502
Lodge, Oliver Joseph (1851-1940), 123, 124,
177,310

London, Fritz (19(X)-1954), 433
Loon, Hendrik van (1882-1944), 16
Lorentz,* Hendrik Antoon (1853-1928), 8, 12,
13, 15, 16, 21. 27, 30, 44, 59, 63, 73, 112,
113,115-131,133,139,141,145.146,
152-157, 159, 163-167, 169, 171, 172,
177, 193, 194, 201, 209, 210, 228-230,
235, 236, 240. 243, 245, 250, 258, 259,
268, 270-273, 275, 278, 279, 282, 283,
291, 303, 304, 306, 316-318, 326, 358,
374, 384, 399, 404, 431, 436, 461, 487,

CAC COC

Lorenz, Richird (1863-1929), 97

Loschmidt,* Johann Joseph (1821-1895), 61,
67, 83-85, 91
Ldwenthal, 300

Lucretius (fl. 1st century B.C.), 319
Lummer, Otto (1860-1925), 366
Lyman, Theodore (1874-1954), 509

Maass, Herbert (1878-1957). 452
McCarthy, Joseph (1908-1957), 10
McCormmach, Russell (1933- ), 121

MacCullagh, James (1809-1847), 1 19
Mach,* Ernst (1838-1916), 13, 15, 44, 47, 83,
86, 103, 133, 216, 282-288, 318, 505
Madelung, Erwin (1881-1972), 491
Maillol, Aristide (1861-1944), 318
Mandel, Heinrich, 331, 333
Mandl, Rudi, 273, 274
Market, Francois (1803-1883), 391
Marconi, Guglielmo (1874-1937), 505
Marden, Mary, 452
MarianofT, Dimitri (1889-?), 452, 528
Mari(, Mileva, see Einstein, Mileva
Mane, 2^rka (1883-1938), 301
Markov, Andrei Andreievich (1856-1922), 98
Marx, Erich (1874-1956), 509
Masaryk, TomaS Garrigue (1850-1937), 12,
513

Maxwell,* James Clerk (1831-1879), 13, 15,
19, 29, 30, 44, 59-62, 65-67, 82, 85, 94,
111, 112, 119-121, 131,229, 230, 237,
246, 283, 289, 318, 319, 392-394, 463
Mayer. Walthcr (1887-1948), 333, 334, 347,
450-452, 492-494, 528, 529
Mehra, Jagdish, 130
Melcher, Horst (1927- ), 490

Mendeleev, Dmitri Ivanovich (1834-1907), 81
Meng, Heinrich (1887-1972), 514
Meyer, Edgar (1879-1960), 507, 508, 510
Meyer, Stefan (1872-1949), 103, 508, 510
Meyerson, Emile (1859-1933), 163, 319
Midtelson,* Albert Abraham (1852-1931), 16,
21.112-117,119,123,125,129,131,

145, 318, 505

Mie. Gustav (1868-1957), 229, 234, 235, 257,
258, 260

Mill, John Stuart (1806-1873), 318
Miller, Arthur (1940- ), 121

Miller, Dayton Clarence (1886-1941), 113,

Millikan, Robert Andrews (1868-1953), 317,
357, 381-383, 385

Minkowski, Hermann (1864-1909), 44, 122,
151, 152, 159, 165, 194, 230. 275, 282
Mtses, Richard von (1883-1953), 492
Misner, Charles (1932- ), 267

Mittag-LefBer, Magnus Gustaf (1846-1927),
171, 505

536

NAME INDEX

Molotov, Vyacheslav (1890- ), 495

Montaigne, Michel (1533-1592), 89
Morley, Edward Williams (1838-1923), 112,
113, 115, 117, 123, 145
Mosengeil, Kurd von (1884-1906), 164
Moszkowski, Alexander (1851-1934), 170, 306
Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus (1756-1791), 16,
38, 183, 301

Muhsam, Hans (1876-1957), 313, 328, 483,
488-489

Muhsam, Minna, 488, 489
Munitz, Milton Karl (1913- ), 267

Muntz, Hermann, 491-492
Musil, Robert (1880-1942), 16
Mussolini, Benito (1883-1945), 452

Nadolny, Rudolf (1873-1953), 503, 504, 527
Naegeli, Carl von (1817-1891), 93, 101
Nagel, Bengt (1927- ), 502

Natanson, Ladislas (1864-1937), 495
Nathan, Otto (1893- ). 242, 476, 530

Naunyn, Bernhard (1839-1925), 506, 507, 510
Navon, Itzhak, President (1923- ), 1 1

Nernst, Hermann Walther (1864-1941), 16,
239, 240, 318, 382, 391-398, 419, 431,
505, 523, 526

Neumann, Franz (1798-1895), 119
Neumann, John von (1903-1957), 497
Newcomb, Simon (1835-1909), 254, 318
Newton,* Isaac (1643-1727), 13-15, 24, 29.

30, 194, 200, 243, 254, 257, 283, 289,

303, 305, 306, 308, 312, 318, 319, 399,
460, 461, 508, 526

Nichols, Ernest Fox (1869-1924), 366
Nissen, Rudolf, 475
Noble, H. R., 119

Noether, Amalie Emmy (1882-1935), 16, 259,
276, 318

Nohel, Emil, 193, 485-486
Nohel, Ychoshua, 485
Norden, Heinz (1905- ), 242

Nordstrdm, Gunnar (1881-1923), 204, 229,
232-236, 240, 329, 331,509,510
North, John, 267
Nyc, Maryjo, 97

Oppenheim, Paul (1885-1977), 530
Oppenheimer, J. Robert (1904-1967), 7, 10,
11,38, 269, 289, 530

Omstcin, Leonard Salomon (1880-1941), 98,
404, 405, 435, 508

Oscen, Carl Wilhelm (1879-1944), 509-511
Ossietzky, Carl von (1889-1938), 12, 516, 517,
528

Ostwald, Friedrich Wilhelm (1853-1932), 45,

83 , 86 , 103 , 186 , 505 , 506 , 521

Painlevc, Paul (1863-1933), 163
Pais, Abraham (1918- ), 182,335

Pais, Sara (1942- ), 170

Panofsky, Wolfgang (1919- ), 118, 155

Panov, V. I., 218

Paschen, Friedrich (1865-1947), 366, 368, 506
Pauli, Wolfgang (1900-1958), 6-8, 13, 26,

140, 144, 149, 153, 154, 182, 185-187,
215, 257, 267, 270, 277, 278, 332, 334,
335, 341, 343, 350, 410, 414, 420, 421,
432, 437, 440, 445, 446, 474, 483, 496,
517

Penrose, Roger (1931- ), 62

Perrin,* Jean Baptiste (1870-1942), 92, 95,

97, 103, 508, 509

Petit, Alexis Therese (1791-1826), 390-392
Pfeffer, Wilhelm (1845-1920), 19, 87
Phillips, Melba (1907- ), 118

Picasso, Pablo (1881-1973), 16, 18
Piccard, Auguste (1884-1962), 240
Pick, Georg (1859-1942), 212
Piero della Francesca (c 1420-1492), 16
Pipkin, Francis (1925- ), 457

Planck,* Max Karl Ernst Ludwig (1858-
1947), 13, 15, 16, 20,21,26-28,31,60,
62, 68, 69, 74, 82, 119, 145, 149-151,

164, 165, 179, 192, 203, 239-243, 283,
312, 316,318,319, 358, 361,362, 366-
375, 378, 382-385, 389, 394, 395, 398,
399, 402, 404, 405, 425, 428, 438, 444,

465, 475, 502, 505, 506, 508, 510, 511,
513, 523, 524, 528

Plato (appr. 428-appr. 348 B.C.), 267
Podolsky, Boris (1896-1966), 347, 455, 456,

466, 494

Poincare,* Henri (1854-1912), 8, 21, 27, 29,
47,94, 115, 120, 121, 126-130, 133, 145,
155, 157-159, 162-172, 194, 209, 230,
270, 279, 505

Pol, Balthasar van der (1889-1959), 304
Poor, Charles Lane (1866-1951), 310
Poulton, Edward Bagnall (1856-1943), 510
Pringsheim, Ernst (1859-1917), 366, 371, 374,
506

Prout, William (1785-1850), 82
Purcell, Edward (1912- ), 155

Rabi,Isidor(1898- ), 7, 454, 517
Racine, Jean (1639-1699), 47
Ramel, Baron Sien Gustav (1872-1947), 504
Ramsaucr, Carl (1879-1955), 440
Ramsey, William (1852-1916), 93, 94
Rathenau, Walther (1867-1922), 12, 16, 316,
317, 320, 503, 526

Rayleigh, Lord (1842-1919), 70, 84, 102, 103,
112,113, 367, 373-375, 394

NAME INDEX

537

Regnault, Henri Victor (1810-1878), 391, 393
Reik, Theodor (1888-1969), 16
Rembrandt van Rijn (1606-1669), 16
Renger, Karl (1887- ? ), 240
Renker, Hans (1886-1954), 240
Ricci-Curbastro, Gregorio (1853-1925), 212,
216,217, 225

Richardson, Owen Willans (1879-1959), 246,
247

Riemann, Bernhard (1826-1866), 170, 212,
217, 225, 258, 281
Ritz, Walter (1878-1909), 484
Rive, Auguste de la (1801-1873), 391
Robertson, Howard Percy (1903-1961), 7
Roentgen, Wilhelm Conrad (1845-1923), 97,
311

Rondon, Candido Mariano da Silva (1865-
1958), 514

Roosevelt, Franklin Delano. (1882-1945), 12,
149, 320, 453, 454, 490, 529
Rosen, Nathan (1909- ), 280, 289, 347,

455, 456, 466, 494-495
Rosenfeld, Leon (1904-1974), 6
Rottenburg, Otto von, 504
Rozsel, Alberta, 477

Rubens, Heinrich (1865-1922), 240, 366-368,
374, 382, 523, 526

Russell, Bertrand (1872-1970), 13, 319, 477,
530

Rutgers, R., 92

Rutherford, Ernest (1871-1937), 85, 86, 326,
360, 386, 402,411,552

Sackur, Otto (1880-1914), 193, 486
St John, Charles Edward (1857-1935), 507
Scarlatti, Domenico (1685-1757), 16
Schaefer, Clemens (1878-1968), 506
Schapiro, Meyer (1904- ), 16

Schiller, Friedrich von (1759-1805), 36
Schilpp, Paul Arthur (1897- ), 16, 49

Schmidt-Ott, Friedrich (1860-1954), 492
Schottky, Friedrich Hermann (1851-1935), 57
Schouien, Jan (1883-1971), 276, 340
Schroedinger,* Erwin (1887-1961), 6, 20, 24,
63, 268, 278, 290, 329, 333, 336, 337,
348. 361, 362, 418, 420, 435, 438-444,
448, 456,515,516
Schubert, Franz (1797-1828), 16
SchUepp, Hermann (1884-1971), 186
Schwarzschild, Karl (1873-1916), 16, 255,
270, 299, 318

Sciama, Dennis (1926- ), 267, 270, 271

Seelig, Carl (1894-1962), 49, 488
Serber, Robert (1909- ), 269

Shankland, Robert (1908- ), 1 1 3, 1 1 6

Shapiro, Irwin (1929- ), 272

Silverstein, Ludwick (1872-1948), 305
Simon, Francis (1893-1956), 398, 421
Sitter, Willem dc (1872-1934), 268, 285, 287,
288,291,304,494

Slater, John Clarke (1900-1976), 418, 419,
441, 442

Smellie, William (1740?-1795), 79
Smith, Howard Kingsbury (1914- ), 473

Smoluchowski, Marian Ritter von Smolan-,
(1872-1917), 16, 93,100-103,318
Snyder, Hartland (1913-1962), 269, 289
Soddy, Frederick (1877-1956), 85
Soldner, Johann George von (1776-1833), 200
Solomon, Jacques, 334
Solovine, Maurice (1875-1958), 47, 133, 522
Sommcrfeld, Arnold (1868-1951), 27, 83, 103,
152, 189, 216, 250, 257, 259, 304, 312,
383, 385, 395, 403, 414, 419, 475, 485,
496, 505, 506, 510, 514
Sophocles (496-406 B.C.), 47
Specker, Hans Eugen, 49
Spinoza, Benedict dc (1632-1951), 16, 47, 318,
467

Stachel, John (1928- ), 202, 443

Stalin, Joseph (1879-1953), 517, 518
Stark, Johannes (1874-1957), 57, 164, 165,
179, 189,409

Stefan, Josef (1835-1893), 365
Stern, Alfred (1846-1936), 41, 209
Stern, Otto (1888-1969), 9, 193, 413, 444,
486,514,517

Slimson, Henry, Secretary of War (1867-
1950), 454

Stokes, George Gabriel (1819-1903), 1 19,

155

Straus, Ernst Gabor (1922-1983), 210, 213,
261,347, 348, 496-497
Stresemann, Gustav (1878-1929), 320
Struik, Dirk (1894- ), 2P, 276, 340

Stuewer, Roger (1934- ), 413

Stumpf, Carl (1848-1936), 306
Sturgkh, Karl von (1859-1916), 12
Sutherland, William (1859-1911), 89, 92
Svedber^, The (1884-1971), 508
Szekeres, George (1911- ), 270

Szilard, Leo (1898-1964), 97, 313, 475, 489-
490

Tait, Peter Guthrie (1831-1901), 61
Talmud (later Talmey), Max (1869-1941), 37.
38, 520

Tanner, Hans (1886- ), 186

Teske, Armin, 100
Thirring, Walter (1927- ), 463

Thomas, Llewellyn Hillcth (1903- ), 143,

144

538

NAME INDEX

Thomson, George Paget (1892-1975), 515
Thomson, Joseph John (1856-1940), 85, 86,
149, 155, 156, 305, 309, 359, 372, 379-
381,385

Thomson, William (Lord Kelvin) (1824-

1907), 19, 61,84, 112, 113, 119, 318,394
Thome, Kip (1940- ), 267, 278, 279

Todd, David Peck (1855-1939), 112
Tolman, Richard Chase (1881-1948), 269,
483, 494

Tolstoi, Leo (1828-1910), 16
Trautman, Andrzej, 278
Treder, Hans-Jilrgen, 49
Trouton, Frederick (1863-1922), 119
Truman, Harry, President (1884-1972), 6
Tyndall, John (1820-1893), 102

Uhlenbeck, George Eugene (1900- ), 143,

249, 332, 405, 432, 433, 466
Urey, Harold (1893-1981), 475

Veblen, Oswald (1880-1960), 114, 495
Verrier, Urbain Jean Joseph Le (1811-1877),
253, 254, 364, 509
Vivaldi, Antonio (1678-1741), 16
Voigt, Woldemar (1850-1919), 120-122, 125,
484

Volkoff, George (1914- ), 269

Voss, Aurel (1845-1931), 275

Waals, Johannes Diderik van der (1837-
1923), 19, 84, 86. 505
Wagner, Ernst (1876-1928), 510
Wagner, Richard (1813-1883), 16
Walcott, Charles Doolittle (1850-1927), 509
Waldeyer-Hartz, Wilhelm von (1836-1921),
508

Walker, Jimmy, Mayor (1881-1946), 528
Wallenberg, R^l (1912- ), 517, 518

Warburg, Emil (1846-1931), 209, 240, 318,
382, 507-510, 523

Waterston, John James (1811-1883), 392
Weber, Heinrich Friedrich (1843-1912), 44,

45, 390-392, 396-397

Weber, Joseph (1919- ), 279

Weinberg, Steven (1933- ), 216, 267, 319

Weiss, Pierre (1865-1946), 507, 514
Weissicopf, Victor (1908- ), 475

Weizmann, Chaim (1874-1952), 11, 315, 451,
476, 488, 526

Wentzel, Gregor (1898-1978), 496
Wergeland, Harald (1912- ), 405

Weyl, Hermann (1885-1955), 7, 177, 194,

212, 257, 259, 267, 268, 275, 276, 288,
290, 318, 327-329, 339-344, 347, 478
Wheeler, John Archibald (1911- ), 267,

269

Whittaker, Edmund Taylor (1873-1956), 168
Wiechert, Emil (1861-1928), 120
Wien, Wilhelm (1864-1928), 146, 153, 159,
232, 361, 365, 366, 368, 376, 377, 484,
505-507, 509

Wiener, Otto (1862-1927), 509
Wigand, Alfred (1882-1932), 392, 393
Wigner, Eugene (1902- ), 7, 441, 454, 490

Wilhelm II, Emperor (1859-1941), 491, 523
Wilkinson, David (1935- ), 272

Will, Clifford Martin (1946- ), 279

Williamson, Alexander (1824-1904), 81
Wilson, Charles Thomson Rees (1869-1959),
380, 514

Wilson, Woodrow, President (1856-1924), 491
Winteler, Jost (1846-1929), 40, 521, 523
Winteler, Paul (1882-1952), 46, 302, 452,

473, 523, 530
Wintemitz, Josef, 319
Wolfke, Mieezystaw (1883-1947), 435
Wright, Orville (1871-1948), 505
Wright, Wilbur (1867-1912), 505
WUllner, Adolph (1835-1908), 393

Young, Thomas (1773-1829), 83, 84

Zangger, Heinrich (1874-1957), 200, 209-
211,232, 240, 241,250, 300, 303
Zeeman. Pieter (1865-1943), 505, 508
Zeppelin, Ferdinand (1838-1917), 505
Zcmike, Frits (1888-1966), 404, 405, 435
Zweig, Stefan (1881-1942), 514

Subject Index

Abraham-Einstcin debate, 231-232
Abraham theory of gravitation, 229-235
Aether, 20-21; see also Michelson-Morley
experiment

aberration of light and, 117-119
definitions of. 111
Einstein and, 130-131, 313
Fresnel’s hypothesis, 123, 124
Hertz and. 119, 120
historical accounts, 119-128
Larmor and, 1 26
Lorentz and, 166-167
Maxwell and. 111, 112, 119-120
Michelson and, 112
Poincare and, 127-128
review of theories, 111-112
special relativity and, 114-115, 138
Aether drift, 140
nonzero, 113-114
Akademie Olympia, 47
Ampere’s molecular currents, 246-247
Analytical mechanics, 203
Anti-semitism, 184-186, 192, 314-317, 502
Atomic nucleus, 326-327
Atomic theory, 79-82
Atomic weapons, 454, 474, 490
Atomicity of matter, see Molecular reality
Atoms, molecules vs, 80
Avogadro’s law, 81
extension of, 88

Avogadro’s number, methods of determining
Brownian motion and, 88-92, 94-95, 99
current knowledge about, 95
Einstein’s, 55, 56, 88, 89, 92, 94-95, 103,
375

Loschmidt’s, 84-85

molecular reality and, 88, 89, 92, 94-95
overdetermination of, 94-95
Planck’s law of blackbody radiation and, 99-
100

Perrin’s review of, 99

Barnett effect, 246
Bavarian Academy, 450
Beta decay, 326, 327
Beta rays, 359

Bending of light, 181-182
is detectable, 194-200
Einstein’s progress recapitulated, 303-305
general relativity theory and, 30
Nordstrom vs Einstein-Grossmann theories,
240

solar eclipse expeditions, 268, 273, 303, 304
Bianchi identities, 256, 258, 274-278
Big bang, 289
Binding energy, 149
Black holes, 269, 270, 278, 279
Blackbody radiation, 27; see also Planck’s law
of blackbody radiation
Einstein on, 20, 402-405
energy fluctuations of, 20
history of, from 1859 to 1926, 371
Kirchhoffs law of, 26, 364-366
and light>quanta, 364-378
Lummer and Pringsheim on, 366, 368
new derivation of, 58
Nichols on, 366
Paschen’s experiment, 366, 368
Planck on, see Planck’s law of blackbody
radiation

as problem in theoretical physics, 28
Rubens on, 366, 368
Rubens-Kurlbaum paper, 366
Stcfan-Boltmann law, 365
Wien’s law, 365-368, 402, 406, 409
Bohr, Niels

Einstein’s knowledge of work of, 416
Einstein’s personal relationship with, 416,
417, 420

experimental evidence and acceptance of new
ideas, 385-386

Nobel prize, 503, 505, 506, 508, 510, 511
photons, see also Bohr-Kramers-Slater
proposal
resistance to, 24
waves vs, 418-419
quantum theory, 28, 361-363
complementarity interpretation of
quantum mechanics, 444, 456
Einstein dialogue with, 6-9, 443, 448
probability interpretation of, 6-9
spectra, 407

539

540

SUBJECT INDEX

Bohr, Niels (coni.)

stationary atomic orbits, 247
writing style of, 417

other references, 15, 20, 24, 28, 144, 190,
326, 360-363, 384, 414, 416-421, 425,
441-448, 454-456, 462, 505, 506, 508,
510,511,526, 530

Bohr-Kramers-Slater proposal (BKS proposal),
416-421,441,442
causality, 419-421

conservation of energy-momentum, 418-419,
421

difficulties of old quantum theory, 418-419
Einstein cm, 419-420
first paradox, 418-419
second paradox, 419-421
Bohr-Sommerfeld conditions, 412
Boltzmann, see also entries beginning
Boltzmann’s
Dulong-Petit law
derivation of, 60, 392
interpretation of, 392-394
Einstein and

second law of thermodynamics, 72-73
statistical mechanics, 59
thermodynamic probability, 62-63, 65
Einstein’s knowledge of work of, 44, 55, 66-
68

entropy and probability, 19, 60-68
Loschmidt’s influence on, 61
molecular reality, 82
Nobel prize, 371
Planck influence on, 62
second law of thermodynamics, 72-73
thermodynamic probability, 62-63, 65
writing style of, 65-66
other references, 56, 59-68, 72-74, 83, 365,
371, 377, 424, 426, 430, 488
Boltzmann’s counting complexions, 63, 71, 72
Boltzmann’s equilibrium distribution of stars,
285

Boltzmann’s equipartition theorem, 60
Boltzmann’s principle, 60, 65, 70-75
Einstein and, 70-75
summary of, 74-75
Planck’s use of, 371
term coined, 19, 65

Boltzmann’s statistical method, 63-65, 70-72,
377, 424
Bom, Max
determinism, 442
Einstein correspondence with, 443
Einstein on, 442, 443
Einstein’s knowledge of work of, 214
gravitation

accelerated finite system, 214
rigid bodies, 214-216

other references, 141, 167, 168, 172, 232,
302, 306, 316, 397, 405, 412, 421, 460,
461,464, 467, 515,518
Bose, see also entries beginning Bose- Einstein,
423-425, 428

derivation of Planck’s law, 423, 425-428
other references, 59, 361, 377, 423-431, 438,
441

Bose-Einstein condensation phenomenon, 59,
428-430, 432-433
postscript on, 432-433
Bose-Einstein gas, 329, 343
Bose-Einstein statistics, 438-439
Boltzmann counting vs, 430
Bose statistics, 377, 427, 429, 430
chronology of, 424
phase transitions in, 432-433
Brownian motion

Avogadro’s number and, 88-92, 94-95, 99
Boltzmann on, 56

diffusion as Markovian process, 97-98
Einstein’s contribution to, 19, 56, 58, 86, 89,
94-100

Einstein’s knowledge of history of, 94
experimental confirmation of, 99
Gouy on, 94

invisibility of molecules and, 86
molecular reality and, 93-100
Naegeli- Ramsey objection, 93-94, 99, 101
in nineteenth century, 93-94
Perrin on, 99
Poincare on, 94
Smoluchowski on, 100-101
subsequent to 1905, 99-100
Bucherer extended electron model, 159

Carnot’s principle, 94

Cartan- Einstein correspondence, 224, 345

Cauchy problem, 291

Causality

Einstein and, 15, 20, 24, 31, 252, 411-412
experimental verdict on, 421
Heisenberg on, 444
nineteenth century view of, 5-6
Planck on, 465

quantum theory as issue in, 6
Schroedingcr on, 443

spontaneous emission of radiation and, 418-
421

Centrifugal field, gravitational field vs, 243
Chemistry, birth of modern, 79
Christoffel four-index symbol, 217, 218
Classical mechanics, see Newtonian classical
mechanics

Clausius’s principle, 60
Clock paradox, 145

Closed system, total energy-momentum of, 277

SUBJECT INDEX

541

Cloud chamber techniques, 380
Coarse-grained probability, 64
Committee on Intellectual Cooperation, 12,
316-317

Complexions, counting, 63, 71, 72
Compton effect, 24, 412-414, 426, 445, 446
Connections
nonsymmetric, 348-349
theory of, 23, 339-340
Conservation laws, 127, 196, 205, 220, 256,
274-278, 341; see also Energy-
momentum conservation
of momentum, 127
nonconservation, 418-419, 425, 428
photons and, 431-432
Constructive theory, 27, 31
Contraction hypothesis, 141
Correspondence principle of relativity 29
Cosmological term, 330
Cosmology, 267, 268, 281-288, 299
chronology of Einstein’s involvement with,
287-288

general relativistic, 285
in 1917, 286

in nineteenth century, 285
Critical opalescence, 58, 100-103
Cygnus A, 270

Dalton’s chemistry, 79-81
Density, fine- and coarse-grained, 64
Determinism, 442
indeterminism, 444
Differential geometry
Einstein and, 8, 44, 212, 213, 467
relativity and post-Riemannian, 336-341
Diffusion as Markovian process, 97-98
Dimensionless constants, 34
Distant parallelism, 346
Doppler effect, 121, 154, 328
Double refraction, 1 19
Duane-Hunt limit, 381-382
Dulong-Petit rule, 60, 390-393

Eddington and unified theories, 339, 342, 343
Einstein, Albert
in Aarau, 40, 131
academic career, 45-46
administrative, 184-185, 239, 240, 249,
312-313

applications for university positions, 45-46
Bavarian Academy, resignation from, 450
Berlin, University of, 209, 239, 313
CalTech, 317
Coll^ de France, 316
Columbia University, 209
Institute for Advanced Study, 6, 7, 450,
453, 492-493

Leiden, University of, 313, 451, 526
Madrid, 451

Physikalisch Technische Reichsanstalt,
209, 249

Prague, Karl-Ferdinand University, 192-
193

Oxford, 451

Privatdozentship, 184-185
Prussian Academy, 239-241, 243, 312-
313, 316-317,450, 504
Utrecht, University of, 209-210
Vienna, 209, 228
Zurich, ETH, 208, 209, 239
Zurich, University of, 185-187, 193, 208-
209

administrative duties, 184-185, 239, 240
249, 312-313

Emergency Committee of Atomic
Scientists, 475

Kaiser Wilhelm Institute, 312
Physikalisch Technische Reichsanstalt,
kuratorium of, 249
Prussian Academy, 313
Akademie Olympia, 47
anti-semitism and, 184-186, 192, 314-317
502

apartness, 13, 14, 39, 385, 386, 461
arts, visual, 16

atomic weapons, 454, 474, 490
authority, attitude to, 38-39
awards, see also honary doctorates, below,
Nobel prize, see Nobel prize
Planck medal, 30-31
Bergson’s philosophy, 510
in Bern, 46-48, 186-187
Bern lecture, 1 32
in Berlin, 239-244, 312-318
Besso and, 477
biographies of, 48-49
birth of, 35

birth of grandchild, 453
birth of greatgrandchild, 530
birth of sons
Eduard, 187
Hans Albert, 18, 47
Bohr and, 416,417, 420, 462
Caputh summer house, 317, 318, 450
chronology of, 520-530
1907, 195
1911, 195
1920s, 313-317
1932-1945, 449-454
1945-1955, 473-478
confidence of, 236
conscientious objection, 474
culture, as man of, 318-319
death of, 325, 476-478

542

SUBJECT INDEX

Einstein, Albert (cont . )
death of Elsa (wife), 302, 452
death of Hermann (father), 47, 302
death of Use (step-daughter), 452
death of Maja (sister), 473
death of Mileva (first wife), 476
death of Pauline (mother), 302-303
death of sons, 476
decline of creativity, 320
disarmament, 12, 314, 454
divorce of Mileva, 240-241, 300-301, 503
doctoral thesis, 46, 48, 58, 87-92
acceptance of, 88

Avogadro’s number, 88, 89, 92, 94-95
calculations in, 90, 91
error in, 92

importance of, 89-90, 92
later work and, 92
Dukas and, 317, 473
education, 47

electromagnetic theory, 131-132
empiricism, 14
in England, 311-312
English language, knowledge of, 66
ETH examination, 40
as ETH student, 41, 45, 131-132
First World War, 242-244, 313
fresh start, importance of, 461
Gandhi’s methods, 474
on German people, 475
Germany and, 308, 312-318
leaves, 449-450
Gibbs and, 72-73
Gibson lecture, 148, 451
Grossmann and, 476, 486
Heisenberg and, 441
Hilbert and, 257-261, 274-275
honorary doctorates, 45, 186, 523
illness, 299-301,317
last, 475-476
Israel and, 475-477
Israeli presidency offered to, 11, 476
Jewish identity of, 314-315, 475, 476, 517
Jews, fate of, 12-13, 312, 314, 475, 518
knowledge of work of others
Bianchi identities, 256
Bohr, 416

Boltzmann, 44, 55, 66-68
de Brc^lie, 437-438
Bom, 214

Edtvdf, 204,216-217
Gibbs, 19, 55, 70, 72
Hertz, 131
Levi-Civita, 212
literature on relativity, 164-166
Lorentz, 121,125, 131,133
Loschmidt objection, 67
Maxwell, 66-67, 131

Michelson-Morley experiment, 21, 115-
119, 131-133, 141, 165
Poincare, 133-134, 165-166
Rayleigh, 70
Ricci, 212
Soldner, 200
Weber, 391

Kyoto address, 132, 139, 179,211
last will and testament, 476
in Le Coq, 450, 452, 493
League of Nations, Committee on
Intellectual Cooperation, 12, 316-317
legend, 7-8,306-312
canonized, 303-306
response to, 311-312
Lenard and, 316
literature, 16, 36, 47, 518
Lorentz and, 8, 169, 209-210, 271-272
Mach and, 216, 282-284
Mach’s phenomenalism, 1 3
marriage to Mileva (first wife), 47
marriage to Elsa, 300-301, 503
on married life, 301-302
mathematics, emphasis on, 172
on Maxwell, 319, 463
military service, 39, 45
Muhsam and, 489
in Munich, 37-40
music, 16, 36, 301, 473
Navy Bureau of Ordnance, 1 2, 454, 529
in New York, 452, 528
newspaper articles by, 241
newspapers and, 11, 171, 306, 308-311,
346, 350, 420, 455
Nobel prize, see Nobel prize
Noether and, 276
on Oppenheimer case, 1 1 , 38
overview of personal biography of, 10
pacifism, 11-12, 242-244, 312-314, 516
parents of, 35
in Paris, 316

patent applications, 489-490
patent office in Bern, 18, 26, 46-48, 184,
208, 476, 477

Pauli and, 8, 347, 349, 496
in Pavia, 39-40
Pavia essay, 130-131
personal habits, 473
personal life in 1904, 18
personality, 7-9, 17

philosophical reading/discussion, 13, 47,
133,318-319

physical appearance of, 36, 46-47
Physical Review and, 495
Planck and, 26-27, 68, 372
political idcas/activiiies, 11-12, 312, 316-
317, 452, 454, 474-475
popular articles, 299, 414

SUBJECT INDEX

543

in Prague, 187, 192-193
precursors, acknowledged, 1 3, 283
to Princeton, 449-454
Rathenau murder and, 316-317, 503
response to reactions of others, 462
religion, 17, 27, 30, 35-36, 38, 39, 41, 192,
319

retirement, 453
in Schaffhausen, 46
school years, 36-41
scientific collaborations, see Einstein’s
scientific collaborations
scientific method, 13-15, 31
scientific papers by, see Einstein’s scientific
papers

scientific work and ideas of, see specific
topics (e.g.. Brownian motion; Causality,
Quantum theory)

separation of relativity theory and quantum
theory, 462-464
sister Maja and, 35, 452, 473
Smoluchowski and, 101-103
Spencer lecture, 449, 451, 460-461
on Spinoza, 467
students of, 186, 239-240
supranational ideals, 12, 313, 314
Swiss citizenship, 41, 45, 308, 315, 503-504
teaching, attitude toward, 46, 186, 239-240
theoretical work, summary of, 17-24
travel, 317, 503
in Ulm, 35-36
U.S. citizenship, 453
in Vienna, 228-236
Weber and, 44, 45
Winteler family, 40
in Winterthur, 46
world government, 313, 314, 474
writing style, 16, 194-195, 417
as young child, 36-37
Zionism, 314-315, 451
in Zurich, 40-45, 184-187, 208-210
Einstein-Bose condensation phenomenon, 59,
428-430, 432-433
Einstein-de Haas effect, 245-249
Einstein-Grossman correspondence, 224-225
Einstein-Mayer theory, 333-334
Einstein-Podolsky- Rosen argument, 456
Einstein-Richardson effect, 246
Einstein-Smoluchowski correspondence, 100-
103

Einsteinian universe, 286
Einstein’s scientific collaborations, 187, 483-
497

Bargmann, 347, 496
Bergmann, 347, 496
Bucky, 495
Ehrenfest, 328, 488
Fokker, 236-237, 487

Goldschmidt, 313, 490-491
Grommer, 290, 328, 329, 333, 342, 466,
487-488

Grossman, 204, 212-213, 216-225, 231,
233, 237, 243-244, 251, 257, 285, 486
aftermath, 223-226
derivation of equations by, 237
developments prior to, 231, 232
general covariance, 243-244
Grossmann’s contribution, 217-219
second paper, 244
stumbling block, 221-223
de Haas, 245-249, 487
Habicht brothers, 484-485
Hoffmann, 290-291, 347, 495-496
Hopf, 485

Inicld, 290-291, 347, 495

Kemeny, 497

Kraichnan, 497

Kaufman, 497

Lanezos, 491-492

Laub, 154, 188-189, 484

Mayer, 333-334, 451-452, 492-494

Muhsam, 313, 488-489

Muntz, 491-492

Nohel, 485-486

Pauli, 496

Podolsky, 347, 448, 455-457, 466. 494
Ritz, 484

Rosen, 280, 289, 347, 448, 455-457, 466,
494-495
dc Sitter, 494
Stem, 486

Straus, 347, 496-497
Szilard, 313, 489-490
Tolman, 494

Einstein’s scientific papers

1900, 45

1901, 18

1902, 18, 55

1903, 19, 67

1904, 19, 67-68

1905, 17-19, 24, 28, 30, 38, 47-48, 89, 94,
138, 140, 266, 357, 372, 375-378, 402,
417, 428, 462

1906, 58, 89, 358, 389, 402

1907, 95, 153, 164-166, 179-183, 189, 194,
195

1908-1911, 185

1909, 185

1910, 72. 95
1911,89, 194, 230
1912.201-206

1913, 194

1914, 243-244, 250

1915, 241,247
November 4, 250-252
November 11, 252-253

542

SUBJECT INDEX

Avogadro’s number, 88, 89, 92, 94-95
calculations in, 90, 91
error in, 92

importance of, 89-90, 92
later work and, 92
Dukas and, 317, 473
education, 47

Boltzmann, 44, 55, 66-68
de Brc^lie, 437-438
Bom, 214

Edtvdf, 204,216-217
Gibbs, 19, 55, 70, 72
Hertz, 131
Levi-Civita, 212
literature on relativity, 164-166
Lorentz, 121,125, 131,133
Loschmidt objection, 67
Maxwell, 66-67, 131

Michelson-Morley experiment, 21, 115-
119, 131-133, 141, 165
Poincare, 133-134, 165-166
Rayleigh, 70
Ricci, 212
Soldner, 200
Weber, 391

patent applications, 489-490
patent office in Bern, 18, 26, 46-48, 184,
208, 476, 477

Pauli and, 8, 347, 349, 496
in Pavia, 39-40
Pavia essay, 130-131
personal habits, 473
personal life in 1904, 18
personality, 7-9, 17

philosophical reading/discussion, 13, 47,
133,318-319

physical appearance of, 36, 46-47
Physical Review and, 495
Planck and, 26-27, 68, 372
political idcas/activiiies, 11-12, 312, 316-
317, 452, 454, 474-475
popular articles, 299, 414

SUBJECT INDEX

545

ovcrdctcrmination, 464-468
scalar, 233-235
various, 229

Fine-grained probability, 64
First World War, 242-244, 313
FitzGerald- Lorentz contraction, 122-123, 166,
167, 168

FitzGerald’s work, Lorentz’ knowledge of,
123-124

Fizeau experiment, 115-119, 123, 127, 139,
145, 150

Einstein and, 139, 145
von Laue and, 150
Lorentz and, 123
Poincare and, 127

Fluctuations, theory of, 55, 69-70, 435-436;

see also Energy fluctuations
Foucault pendulum, 282
Fresnel’s aether hypothesis, 118, 123, 124
Fresnel’s drag coefficient, 118, 123, 144-145
Friedmann universe, 62, 291

Galactic motions, 286
Galilean invariance, 140
Galilean transformations, 140
Gandhi’s methods, 474
Gauge condition, 280
Gauge fields, local non-Abelian, 32, 33
Gauge transformations, 340-341
Gauss’s theory of surfaces, 211-212
Gay-Lussac law, 81
Geiger-Bothe experiment, 445-446
Geometrization, program of, 33
Germany, Einstein and, 308, 312-318, 449-
450, 475
Gibbs’s papers

Einstein knowledge of, 19, 55, 70, 72
Einstein on, 72-73

Gravitation, see also Gravitation, Einstein on
equivalence principle in, see Equivalence
principle

field equations of, see Field equations of
gravitation

field theories of, see Field theories of
gravitation

general covariance, 219-223
Lorentz on, 279
Maxwell’s equations, 181-182
Nordstrttm on, 229, 232-236
Poincare on, 129, 279
rigid bodies, 214-216
structure of matter and, 253
variational principle applied to, 258
Gravitation, Einstein on, 178-182, 192-206
bending of light, 181-182, 194-200
detectable, 194-200

E = mc^ for gravitational mass, 182
energy of, 196-198

equivalence principle, 179-181, 195-196
203-205

general covariance, 221-223
Maxwell’s equations, 181-182
Prague papers, 192-206
bending of light, 198-200
equivalence principle, 195-196
gravity of energy, 196-198
red shift, 180-181, 196-198

Hawking radiation, 292
Heisenberg
causality, 444
Einstein and, 441
indeterminacy, 334
Nobel prize, 24, 515, 516
quantum mechanics, 249, 441-442
simplicity, 467

uncertainty principle, 444, 445
other references, 20, 24, 249, 329, 362, 405,
420, 435, 440-442, 448,516
Hidden variable, term 456
Hilbert condition, 280
Hubble’s law, 268

Indistinguishability, 430-431
Indivisibility of matter, 85-86
Inertia

Einstein on, 287
Mach’s law of, 284
Inertial frames, 138, 140, 141
Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, 6-7,
450, 453, 492-493
Invisibility of atoms, 86
Ions, 120

Israel, Einstein and, 475-477
presidency offered, 1 1, 476

Jeans law, 404

Jews, fate of, 12-13, 312, 314, 475, 518
Jupiter effect, 1 1 1

Kaluza theory, 329-334
Kaluza-Klein theory, 331-335, 347
Einstein on, 334-335
Kinetic theory of gases, 82-85
KirchhofTs law of blackbody radiation, 26,
364-366

Klein theory, 329-336
Einstein on, 333-336
Kursunt^lu’s theory, 348

Lande factor, 247

Langevin extended electron model, 159

546

SUBJECT INDEX

League of Nations, 12, 316-317
Lense-Thimng effect, 284
Leptons, 33

Light, aberration of, 117-119
Light emission by canal rays, 329
Light-quantum, 19, 38, 56, 58, 364-368, 376-
378; see also Photons
cloud chamber techniques and, 380
Compton effect proves, 24
Duane-Hunt limit, 381-382
Einstein’s cautious attitude toward, 382-383,
410-411

Einstein’s discovery of, 71
experimental evidence for, 384-385
heuristic principle and, 377-378, 381, 382
statement of, 377
Lorentz on, 384

momentum properties of, 20, 407-409
paradox of, 361
as particles, 403
photon and, 407-408
Planck on. 372-375, 378, 384
Rayleigh-Jeans law, 373-375
reactions to, 357-358, 361, 382-386
reality of, 410-41 1

Light scattering, classical theories of, 414
Liquid surfaces, thermodynamics of, 56-57
Lorentz, see also entries beginning Lorentz
abberration of light, 117-119
aether, 166-167

atomistic electromagnetic theory, 123
death of, 171

Einstein and, personal relationship, 8, 169,
209-210, 271-272

Einstein’s knowledge of work of, 121, 125,
131, 133

electrodynamics, 120
electromagnetic mass, 155-159, 166
equation for electron, 139
FitzGerald- Lorentz contraction, 21, 167,

168

FitzGerald’s work, knowledge of, 123-124
Fizeau experiment, 117-119
gravitation theory, 229-230, 279
on Kaufman, 166

light-quantum, attitude toward, 384
Michelson-Morley experiment, 112-113,

123, 125

Nobel prize, 153, 505-507
Poincare and, 127-129, 169
relativity and, attitude toward, 167
special relativity, 21, 27, 120-127
contributions prior to 1905, 123-126
on time, 125, 167
Voigt’s work, 121-122
other references, 12, 13, 15, 16, 44, 59, 63,
73,112,113,115-131,133,139,141,

145, 146, 152-157, 159, 163-167, 171,
172, 177, 193, 194, 201, 209, 210, 228-
230, 235, 236, 240, 243, 245, 250, 258,
259, 268, 270-273, 275, 278, 279, 282,
283, 291, 303, 304, 306, 316-318, 326,
358, 374, 399, 404, 431, 436, 461, 487,
505-508, 525
Lorentz covariance, 1 26
Lorentz- FitzGerald contraction, 21, 144, 167,
168

Lorentz group, 129
Lorentz invariance, 140, 204, 231
Einstein on, 145
general relativity and, 183
Lorentz transformations, 21, 120, 123-126
Einstein and, 21, 142-144, 202, 204
Poincare and, 1 29, 1 30
special theory relativity and, 142-144
Loschmidt

Avogadro’s number, method of determining,
84-85

Boltzmann, influence on, 61
Einstein’s knowledge of work of, 67
on molecular reality, 84-85
other references, 83, 91

Mach

death of, 282

Einstein and, 11, 13, 216, 282-288
law of inertia, 284
mechanics, 283, 284
molecular reality, 83, 86, 103
phenomenalism, 13
philosophy, 283
relativity theory, 283
rotation, 282

other references, 15, 44, 47, 133, 216, 282-
288, 318, 505
Mach’s principle, 284-288
Magnetization by rotation, 246
Mass-energy equivalence, 148-149
for gravitational mass, 1 82; see also
Differential geometry; Riemannian
geometry

Mathematics, Einstein and, 23
education, 37, 212
impact on, 340
paper on, 344-345
Matrix mechanics, 20, 329, 425
Matter, see also Molecular reality
current picture of basic constituents of, 33
gravitation and structure of, 253
Maxwell, see also entries beginning
Maxwell(‘s)
on aether, 111-112
death of, 112
demons of, 61

SUBJECT INDEX

547

Einstein’s knowledge of work of, 65-67, 131
Einstein on, 319, 463
on entropy and probability, 60-62, 65-67
field concept, 119
gyromagnetic effects, 246
Michelson on, 112
molecular reality, 82, 85
second law of thermodynamics, 60-62
specific heat of gases, 393-394
vector theory of gravitation, 229, 230
other references, 13, 15, 19, 29, 30, 44, 59-
62, 94, 119-121, 131,230, 237, 283, 289,
318, 392-394, 463
Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution, 64
Maxwell- Lorentz equations in
electrodynamics, 139
Einstein and, 140, 145, 147
tensor form of, 1 52

Maxwell’s electrodynamics, 119-120, 181-182,
288, 289, 325
Einstein on, 140, 154
for free fields, 384

generally covariant form of, 220-221
Meandering of rivers, 329
Mechanics, classical, see Newtonian classical
mechanics

Mercury, perihelion of, 22, 253-255
Meson (pion), 32, 360
Michelson, see also entries beginning
Michelson
on aether, 112
death of, 116
on Maxwell, 112
Nobel prize, 114

reaction to special relativity, 113-114
other references, 16, 21, 112-117, 1 19, 123,
125,129,131,145,318, 505
Michelson-Morley experiment, 111-119, 141
Einstein and, 145, 172-173
Einstein’s knowledge of, 21, 115-119, 131-
133, 141, 165
FitzGerald and, 122-124
Larmor on, 123
Lorentz on, 123, 125
Miller’s results, 113, 144
Michelson- Rayleigh correspondence, 112-113
Mie’s theory of gravitation, 229, 234, 235, 257,
258, 260

Molecular binding energy, 149
Molecular dimensions, 58
Molecular reality, 79-104
Avogadro*s law and, 81
Avogadro’s number and, 88, 89, 92, 94-95
Brownian motion and, 93-100
critical opalescence and, 100-103
Marie Curie on, 86
Einstein's doctoral thesis, 87-92

Einstein’s interest in, 18-19
estimation of molecular dimensions, 83-85
in nineteenth century, 79-86
in chemistry, 79-82, 85
indivisibility, 85-86
invisibility, 86
kinetic theory, 82-85
osmotic pressure and, 87
Ostwald on, 83, 86, 103
Pfeffer conjecture, 87
Prout’s hypothesis, 82
Smoluchowski on, 101-103
van’t Hoff laws, 86-88
Morgan manuscript, 142, 178
Motion
absolute, 129

of resonator in radiation field, 58
singularities, 288-291
Muon, 360

Navy Bureau of Ordnance, 12, 454, 529
Needle radiation, 431, 435
Nemst’s heat theorem, 396-399, 431
Neutrino, 327, 360
Neutron, 360
Neutron star, 278, 279
nuclear and gravitational forces in, 269
Newton, see also entries beginning Newton;
Newtonian
absolute space, 30
causality, 5-6; see also Causality
Einstein on, 14

law of gravitation, 252, 254, 305, 325
general relativity and, 204
Poincare on, 1 29
special relativity and, 204
law of inertia, 284
on rotation, 243, 282
other references, 13-15, 24, 29, 194, 200,
257, 283, 289, 303, 306, 308, 312, 318,
319, 399, 460, 461,508, 526
Newton- Poisson equation, 221, 252, 285
Newtonian classical mechanics, 203
Einstein on, 460-461
first axiom of, 63
relativity and, 164

Newtonian infinite, conundrum of, 286, 287,
306

Newtonian limit, Grossmann’s difficulty with,
220, 222
Nobel prize

Einstein’s award, 48, 153, 300, 315. 317,
377, 386, 502-511
Arrhenius’s report, 510
citizenship status and, 503-504
Gullstrand’s reports, 509, 510
news of award, 503

SUBJECT INDEX

548

Nobel prize {conL )

Oseen report, 510, 511
relativity vs photoeffect, 511
nominations by Einstein for, 13, 24, 448,
505-506, 513-518

nominations of Einstein, 45, 506-510
procedures of Academy for awarding, 502
various recipients of, 88, 103, 114, 153, 371,
448, 503, 505-506
Noether theorem, 259, 274, 276
Nordstrom theory of gravitation, 204, 229,
232-236, 240

Nuclear binding energy, 149, 326
Nuclear physics, 326-327

Objective reality, 449, 451, 454-457, 464
Oppenheimer case, 7, 10-11, 38, 475
Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit, 269
Osmotic pressure, molecular reality and, 87

Pacifism, Einstein on, 11-12, 242-244, 312-
314,516

Particle physics, history of, 359-361
Particle-wave duality, 48, 49, 402-405, 443-
444
Particles

c. 1920, 325-328
new, 33

Patent applications, 489-490
Patent office in Bern, 18, 26, 46-48, 184, 208,
476, 477

Perihelion of Mercury, 22, 253-256
Perrin

Brownian motion, 99
Nobel prize, 103, 508, 509
other references, 92, 95, 97, 508, 509
Pfeffer’s conjecture, 87, 88
Phenomenalism, Einstein and, 1 3
Phenomenon, usage of word, 455
Photoelectric effect, 357, 378-382
Photochemical process, thermodynamics of, 58
Photon, 24, 358-359, 361, 402-414; also
Bohr-Kramers-Slater proposal
Bohr on, 418-419
chance and, 410-412
Compton effect, 412-414
condition of dircctcdness, 410
Einstein on, 380-381, 410-412, 431-432
light-quantum and, 407-408
momentum fluctuations, 408-410
nonconservation, 425, 428, 431-432
particle picture, 407-408
properties of, 407

resistance to, 357, 361, 382-386, 416-421
spontaneous and induced radiative
transitions, 405-407
term, 407, 408
waves vs, 418-419

Photon spin, 426

Physical observation, knowledge and, 5
Physical Review, Einstein and, 495
Physics

everyday intuition and, 141
history of, 26-31

revolution and transition in, 26-31
special theory of relativity and modern, 155
Pion (meson), 32, 360
Planck, see also entries beginning Planck
application of relativity to quantum theory,
151

Boltzmann’s influence on, 62
on Boltzmann’s principle, 37 1
causality, 465

Einstein and, personal relationship, 26-27,
68, 372

experimental evidence and acceptance of
ideas, 385-386

light-quantum, attitude toward, 384
molecular reality, 82

Nobel prize, 372, 505, 506, 508, 510, 511
quantum mechanics, 404
quantum theory, see Quantum theory,
Planck and

Rayleigh-Jeans law, 371- 75
relativity, first paper on, 150-151
specific heat at low temperatures, 397
special relativity and, 28, 150-151
other references, 13, 15, 16, 20, 21, 26-28,
31,60, 62, 69, 74, 119, 145, 149-151,
164, 174, 179, 192, 203, 239-243, 283,
312, 316, 318, 319, 358, 389, 394, 395,
398, 399, 402, 405, 425, 428, 438, 444,
465, 475, 502, 505, 506, 508, 510, 511,
513, 523, 524, 528
Planck’s constant, 60, 151
Planck’s law of blackbody radiation, 26, 27,
358, 368-378

Avogadro’s number and, 99-100
Bose’s new derivation of, 423, 425-428
Debye derivation of, 438-439
Einstein’s derivation of, 20, 280, 405-407
Einstein on, 372-375, 378, 394-395
Ponderomotive force in magnetic field, 1 54
Poincare
aether, 127-128
Brownian motion, 94
Carnot’s principle, 94
covariance of electrodynamics, 1 29
Einstein and, 169-172
Einstein’s knowledge of work of, 133-134,
165-166

electromagnetic mass, 157-159
gravitation, 129, 230, 279
Lorentz and, 127-129, 169
Lorentz transformations and, 21, 129, 130
in 1905, 128-130

SUBJECT INDEX

549

on simultaneity, 127
special relativity, 21, 27, 126-130
other references, 8, 29, 47, 115, 120, 121,
126-130, 133, 145, 155, 157-159, 162-
172, 194, 209, 230, 270, 279, 505
Positron, 360-361, 452
Probability, see also Entropy and probability
Boltzmann’s definition of, 62-63, 65
coarse- and fine-grained, 64
Einstein on, 62-63, 65, 73-74
Einstein’s definition, 72
Proton, 360
Prout’s law, 149

Prussian Academy, 239-241, 243, 312-313,
316-317, 450, 504
Pulsars, 269, 270, 281

Quadrupole formula, 279-281
Quantum electrodynamics, 32
Quantum field theory, 32, 463
Quantum mechanics, 404, 405
complementarity interpretation, 456
completeness, 449

Einstein’s response to, 24, 31, 440-457
incompleteness of, 456
1925-1931, early debate, 440-449
nonrelaiivistic version of, 24, 463
Planck and, 404
relativistic version of, 32, 463
Quantum statistics, 423-433
Quantum theory

Bohr- Einstein dialogue on, 6-9, 445-449
causality as issue in, 6, 15
discovery of, 27

Einstein and, 153, 179. 188-190, 197, 280,
320, 327-328

contributions to, 19-20, 23-24, 30-31,
358-359

discomfort with, 410-412
summary of beliefs, 461
interaction between radiation and matter, 28
of molecular gas, 59
nonseparable classical motion, 412
‘old’ (1900-1925), 28-29, 383-384, 412,

425, 462-463
difficulties in, 418-419
Planck and, 28, 29, 361-362, 368-372, 383-
384

probability interpretation of, 6-9
relativity theory and, 146-147, 151
resistance to, 383-384
as revolution, 28-30
solid state, 28, 358

statistical mechanics, link between, 19-20,
56, 74
Quarks, 33
Quasars, 270, 274
Quasi-static world, 288

Radiation, see also Blackbody radiation
Einstein’s application of statistical reasoning
to, 70

Einstein’s theory of, 185, 404
equipartition applied to, 58
quantum puzzles concerning, 418-421
status of theory in 1909, 404
Radiative equilibrium, quantum theory of, 328
Radiative fluctuations, 409
Radiative transitions, spontaneous and induced
405-407

Radio galaxy, 270

Radioactive substances, transformations of,

149, 411,412

Rayleigh-Einstein- Jeans law, 403, 406
Rayleigh-Jeans law, 373-375
Rayleigh scattering, 102, 103
Red shift, 177, 180-181, 196-198
Relativity, general theory of, 8, 9, 1 5, 266-292,
450-457; see also Gravitation, Einstein on
1915-1980. 266-271
1915-1925, 268
after Einstein, 269-21 \

1930s, 268-269
bending of light, 30, 181-182
Bianchi identities, 274-278
coordinate conditions, 224
cosmology, 281-288; see also Cosmology
discovery of, 20-23
Einstein-Grossmann collaboration, see
Einstein’s scientific collaborations,
Grossmann

Einstein’s response to, 440-457
energy and momentum conservation, 274-
278

equivalence principle in, 179-181
final steps toward, 250-257
gravitational energy, 181-182
gravitational red shift, 180-181
gravitational waves, 278-281
Lorentz invariance, 183
Maxwell’s equations, 181-182
mechanical equations of, 203
predictions of, 273-274
Prague papers, see Gravitation, Prague
papers

red shift, 197-198
solar eclipse expeditions, 268, 273
stellar structure and, 269
tensors of, 218-219
three successes of, 269, 271-274
Relativity, special theory of, 9, 15, 20-21, 138-
159

to 1905, 130-134
June 1905, 138-147
September 1905, 148-149
after 1905, 153-155
aesthetic origins of, 138

550

SUBJECT INDEX

Relativity, special theory of {cont. )
aether and, 138
aether dynamics and, 114-115
applications of, 144-146
assimilation of, 27-28
discovery of, 21, 27
E-mcM 48-149
early responses to, 149-153
electromagnetic mass, 155-159, 166
FitzGerald and, 122-124
historical background leading to, 111-134
impact on modem physics, 1 55
Larmorand, 122-123, 126
Lorentz and, 21, 27, 120-127
Lorentz transformations, 142-144
mass-energy equivalence, 148-149
Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism and,
119-120

Michclson-Morley experiment and, 1 14-
119

Michelson’s reaction to, 113-114
Minkowski’s contribution to, 151-152
Minkowski’s response to, 151-152
Newtonian theory of gravitation and, 178-
182

nonconstant light velocity and, 230
Planck and, 28

Poincare and, 21, 27, 126-130
postulates of, 140-142
precursors of, 119-128
quantum theory and, 146-147, 151
simplicity and, 138-140
tensor methods for, 1 52
time and, 1 39

as transition in physics, 27-30
transition to general relativity, 1 54
Voigt and, 120-122

Relativity theory, see also Relativity, general
theory of; Relativity, special theory of
experimenud status of in 1979, 272-273
international conferences on, 163, 269-270
GR9, 270, 288, 291-292
Mach and, 283

as new way of thinking, 163-164
Newtonian mechanics and, 164
popular exposition of, 272
as transition, 29-30
Whittaker and, 168

Religion, 17, 27, 30, 35-36, 38, 39, 41, 192,
319

Ricd calculus, 276, 337-339
Ricci tensor, 219, 221, 223, 237, 342-345
Ricmann-Christoffel tensor, 218, 236-237,
276

Riemann space, 339

Riemannian geometry, 22, 23, 210, 212, 213,
277, 337

tensor calculus of, 217-219
with torsion, 345
Rigid bodies, 1 54
Rotation
Einstein on, 189
Mach on, 282

Newton’s argument for absolute character of,
243

zero point energy of, 247
Rubens-Kurlbaum paper, 366
Rutherford law of radioactive decay, 41 1
Rydberg’s constant, 28

Schroedinger
causality, 443
Nobel prize, 24,515,516
wave function of, 441, 443, 449
wave mechanics, 444
other references, 6, 20, 24, 63, 268, 278,

290, 329, 333, 336, 337, 348, 361, 362,
418, 420, 435, 438-444, 448, 456, 515,
516

Schwarzschild singularity, 289
Schwarzschild solution, Kruskal treatment of,
270

Scientihe method, 13-15, 3^

Self-induction, 131, 133
Semivectors, 451-452

Simplicity, 138-140, 273, 325-326, 347, 349,
466-467

special relativity and, 138-140
Simultaneity, 21, 127
concept of, 1 42
definition of, 180-181
Einstein’s treatment of, 180-181, 183
Poincare on, 1 27
Singularities

gravitational collapse with, 32
problem of motion, 288-291
Schwarzschild, 289
Solid state quantum theory, 58
Solar eclipse expeditions, 268, 273, 303-304
Solvay conferences, 200, 209, 270, 399, 408,
418, 444-446
Space, 22, 201-202
absolute, 30, 284
Euclidean, 235
limits of, 309
Mach’s mechanics, 284
measurement of, 219
Riemannian, 339

special theory of relativity and, 151-152
Specific heat, 58, 358, 389-399
diamond anomaly, 391-393
Einstein on, 394-399
of gases, 393-394
at low temperatures, 397-399

SUBJECT INDEX

551

Ncrnst’s work on, 396-399
in nineteenth century, 389-394
of solids, 395-397
Spin values, 466

Spontaneous radiative transitions, 405-407,
411,419-421

Statistical dependence, 430
Statistical laws, 31
Statistical mechanics

Boltzmann’s cquipartition theorem, 60
Einstein on

Boltzmann’s influence on, 59
Gibbs’s influence on, 59
prior to 1905, 74-75
equipartition theorem of classical, 29
foundations of, 58, 74
phenomenological approach of Einstein, 59
quantum theory link between, 19-20, 74
Statistical physics

Einstein’s contribution to, summary of, 55-
60

entropy and probability in, see Entropy and
probability

molecular basis of, 19-20
molecular reality in, see Molecular reality
Stefan- Boltzmann law, 365
Stern-Gerlach experiment, 328
Stokes’s law, 96
Strong interaaions, 33, 327
Supergraviiy, 350
Supernovas, 278, 279
Sutherland-Einstein relation, 92
Synchronicity, 142, 145, 181

Tachyons, 149
Tensor(s)

of general relativity theory, 218-219
special relativity theory and, 1 52
Tensor calculus, Riemannian geometry and,
217-219

Theory of principle, 27, 31, 460
Thermal conductivity in gases, 58-59
Thermodynamic probability, definition of, 62-
63. 65

Thermodynamics

Boltzmann’s interpretation, 100
Einstein on, 56-57, 67-69, 431
first law of, discovery of, 60
of liquid surfaces, 56-57
of photochemical processes, 58
relativistic, 58, 154
second law of. 19, 60-62, 82, 94
Einstein’s proof for irreversible processes,
67

Einstein’s sutement of, 68
third law of, 397
Einstein on, 431

Thomas factor, 143-144
Time, 201

everyday intuition and, 141
general, 125
inertial frames, 141
local, 128, 141, 167
Lorentzon, 125, 128, 141, 167
Poincare on, 126-128
measurement of, 219
special relativity and, 139, 141, 151-152
Time of an event, definition, 142
Ttmelike vector, 1 52
Trouton-Noble experiment, 119
Tyndall phenomenon, 102

Uncertainty principle, Heisenberg’s, 444, 445
Unified field theory, Einstein and, 8, 9, 20, 23,
31-34,261,325-351,460-468
chronolt^ of, 341-350
cosmological problem, 330
doubts about, 467-468
final field equations, 349
final words on, 350
first attempt at, 287
electromagnetism in, 23
five-dimensional theories, 329-336, 466
gestation, 328-330
meaning of, to Einstein, 465-466
motivation for, 325-326
nonsymmetric case, 348-349
pioneers of, 329

post-Riemannian diflTercntial geometry and,
336-341

postscript on, 350-351
reaction to, 347
superunificaiion, 33
Weyl’s theory, 329, 338-341
Universal molecular force, 57, 68

Van ’t HolTs law, 86-88, 95, 96
Variational principle, 203, 233-235, 258, 274-
275

Velocity of light, 128, 139, 167, 198-200, 202,
230

Voigt transformation, 121-122

Wave function, term, 494

Wave function of Schroedinger, 441, 443,

449

Wave mechanics, 20, 329, 435-439
birth of, 435-439
from de Broglie and Einstein to
Schroedinger, 438-439
from de Broglie to Einstein, 435-438
from Einstein to de Broglie, 435-436
Schroedinger’s 444

552

SUBJECT INDEX

VVeyl’s theories, 329, 338-341
Wien regime, 376-377
Wien’s guess, 376, 377
Wien’s law, 365-368, 402, 406, 409
World government, 313, 314, 474
World line, 152

X-rays

discovery of, 31 1
sources of, 270

Zeeman cfifect, gyromagnetic anomaly and, 249
Zionism, 314-315, 451

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Texts

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Subtle Is The Lord"

See other formats